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。
ChenChan1051 · 2026年7月31日 01:27 UTC
Have the appearance owner judge identified physical bezels under the agreed method, then retain acceptable, rejected and unresolved examples separately; a camera annotation cannot settle the surface condition it is supposed to represent.
21分The selected bezels are retained. Image labels came first; physical review has not happened yet.
22分Record how those images were made while the parts are being reviewed: holder, seating, lighting and capture settings. Physical judgements improve the labels, but cannot recover undocumented presentation conditions.
23分Will the person who reloads the bezel help define the repeat-placement cases? They need to reproduce the intended seating after handover.
0分Yes. Quality has now judged the retained examples; one real scratch is not where the bright streak was circled.
6分Keep that scratch's location tied to the physical bezel during the capture comparison; reducing the bright streak is not success if the confirmed defect becomes less visible.
4分And keep a separate validation selection once tuning begins. Familiar examples are useful for development, but they shouldn't be the only evidence used to judge the finished inspection.
21分Agreed. Repeat placement still changes scratch visibility, so we're reviewing the holder and lighting before selecting thresholds.
14分Who retains the physical examples and configuration record when this moves from development to routine inspection?
17分Quality keeps the examples; maintenance keeps holder and lighting revisions. No commissioned inspection claim while the visibility comparison remains unfinished.
13分