After the quality inspection finds problems, uploading the rectification photos and then closing the work order will leave the review process missing. The engineering system should separate problem registration, rectification submission and review confirmation, and save each processing opinion, especially the continued processing after the review fails.

How to arrange records and operations

Work order related items, parts, inspection items and problem descriptions, specify responsible positions and processing time limits. The rectifier submits measures and evidence, and the reviewer records the conclusion. When returning, explain the missing items and resubmit to form a new processing record; after closing, if problems are found again, you can reopen and retain the association.

The description of the problem should pinpoint the specific parts and inspection items, and the photos should be accompanied by shooting instructions to avoid uploading only distant views without being able to determine the rectification targets. Changes in the rectification period need to record the reasons and confirmers, and do not erase the original arrangement by editing the date. Reviews can record the items that are still pending, and keep the failed parts if they are partially passed. Closing a work order does not directly change the conclusions of other quality records. Project summary allows querying by responsible position, issue type and status, but repeated issues cannot be excluded from the current to-do list just because they reference old work orders.

Specific scenarios that need to be checked

For example, if the patching is completed but the data is not completed, the test can only confirm part of the matter. The operation permissions of different roles should be verified separately, and the rectifier cannot directly replace the reviewer in making the final judgment. The summary dashboard displays the quantities to be corrected, to be reviewed, and confirmed to avoid all submissions being counted as completed.