简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

Faceplate scratch labels following the reflection

YasminAdams0093 · 2025年12月3日 14:41 UTC

已关闭
YA
YasminAdams0093
Our proposed FR10 faceplate inspection has acquired a folder of scratch examples whose bright streaks move when the same part is reseated, and I would like to establish a dependable physical comparison before we let those labels decide the camera settings.

17 条回复

DA
DanielChen1174

Have the actual plates been inspected, or just their pictures?

13
YA
YasminAdams0093

Only the pictures so far, Daniel; the plates are retained with IDs, and quality is being asked to inspect those surfaces.

14
GA
GabrielAli0192

Who decided the streaks were scratches then?

23
LU
LuisBrown0956

Our image set improved after a loose locating strip was replaced, but the faint scuff still needed better lighting. I would ask tooling to compare the seating as well as asking quality about the actual marks.

18
CA
CallumChan1056

We followed a bright band through several images before somebody asked where it was on the part. That question was overdue. Gabriel, the label author should be in the comparison, but the useful outcome is a corrected reference method rather than finding someone to blame.

16
GA
GabrielAli0192

I meant who needs the correction, not who gets blamed.

3
FI
FionaAli0238

That distinction matters to the trainer too. We can teach why a physical faceplate is unacceptable before the camera method is ready, but a guessed scratch folder makes a poor lesson for either job.

21
YA
YasminAdams0093

Gabriel and Callum, our assistant labelled the folder and is joining quality's comparison; Luis, tooling found that a corner can sit on top of the stop instead of against it.

17
HA
HarishBarnes0576

Could you show the assistant both seating positions with the same identified plate? Cheap way to explain why the pictures disagree, though it would not decide whether that plate is acceptable.

0
DA
DanielChen1174

Has quality made that acceptance decision yet, Yasmin?

18
YA
YasminAdams0093

Yes, Daniel, the main example is accepted and a separate faintly marked plate is rejected under their viewing method; both are retained, and Harish's paired-seating explanation is being added to the review.

-1
KA
KaiAdams0106

Does the supplier now know which labels were withdrawn?

12
LU
LuisBrown0956

Yasmin, keep the faint reject in the repeat comparison after any holder change. My loose-strip fix made the pictures more consistent without solving visibility of the actual scuff.

10
FI
FionaAli0238

Luis, thanks for reporting the unfinished bit too. It is easy for a holder repair to become the success story while the inspector is still saying the important mark cannot be seen reliably.

14
YA
YasminAdams0093

Kai, the supplier has the corrected labels and full frames; Luis, both physical decisions remain in the proposed repeat comparison, and the holder change has not yet been trialled.

20
HA
HarishBarnes0576

Who owns that repeat trial now? I would rather hear it is awaiting a named person than watch everyone assume the supplier is doing it.

25
YA
YasminAdams0093

Our vision lead owns it with tooling and quality attending; it is awaiting the reviewed holder, so the camera thresholds remain undecided.

17

讨论已关闭

此讨论已连续六个月没有活动,现已关闭新回复。 最后活动: .