QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting · RWF-27065

A large crop makes tiny differences look dramatic. How can a checklist remain proportionate?

Discussion record: RWF-27065.

Start with function, legibility, assembly and clear visible damage. Explain what the full-size image shows, what the crop adds and what remains uncertain; do not turn an overlay into an automatic verdict.

Clarification for “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: the point beginning “Start with function, legibility, assembly and…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Method note for “QC checklist: prioritise observable faults over pixel hunting”: use “Start with function, legibility, assembly and…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.