Quality has identified the real scratch on our retained polished cover, but the current UR5e presentation holder hides part of it behind a locating lip; tooling is considering different contacts, and I want our next image comparison to show whether the defect becomes visible without losing a repeatable seat.
Compare the actual identified cover in the current and proposed holders, with the complete inspection area recorded. Keep ordinary accepted covers in the same exercise. Moving a lip is useful only if the resulting presentation still shows the features you need.
Peter's check is useful, though I would have tooling define the intended seat first; otherwise the learner may demonstrate ingenuity when you wanted repeatability.
The proposed contact arrangement is now drawn and quality has kept the same scratched cover in the comparison, with accepted covers too; Peter, our relief operator is joining the presentation check rather than just watching tooling load it.
And have somebody own the retained sample set afterwards, because six useful pictures can become six guessed labels again when the parts disappear into the general box.
Ben, quality is keeping the identified set in its reference drawer; Gabriel, the revised holder leaves the seating check visible, and our relief operator spotted the deliberately incomplete seat in the supervised comparison without a prompt.
The whole marked scratch is visible in the revised presentation captures, while the accepted bright edge remains an accepted reference; repeat presentations are still varying the reflection enough that our vision lead wants another lighting comparison before choosing thresholds.
Yes, Peter, both seating examples are in the handover draft with the holder identity; thanks for suggesting another pair of hands, it caught a confusing instruction before we spent time adjusting the images around it.