From field evidence to follow-up
Repair and independent reinspection
Connect inspection findings to repair or assembly rework, then verify the correction through independent reinspection. Completing the corrective work does not mean the item has passed.
Who this is forAssembly quality teams, repair technicians and reviewers coordinating corrective work across shifts.
How the workflow fits together
Record the issue
Keep the original finding, its inspection point and evidence together. Make the expected correction and responsible role clear.
Document the repair
Record the corrective action and new evidence. Treat repair completion as a request for verification, not a final quality decision.
Reinspect independently
Use the agreed inspection scheme to collect fresh evidence and obtain an independent review. Retain unresolved items in the next shift’s follow-up.
A captured image is not a passed inspection. A repair is not a passed reinspection. A result for inspected items does not establish whole-plant yield or authorize shipment.
Does this replace a CAPA or QMS system?
This page describes inspection-level repair and verification. It does not establish a complete regulated CAPA process, certification or a ready-made connection to every QMS or ERP. Evaluate those requirements separately.
Define a useful pilot.
Bring one asset type, a few representative inspection points, an agreed defect standard and the people responsible for review. Agree sample coverage, false positives, missed defects, review time and acceptance criteria before measuring results. Confirm device support, data retention, access permissions and integration scope in the proposal.
Separate “repaired” from “verified”.
These pages describe the intended EPOVIS workflow. Confirm the supported devices, feature availability and acceptance scope for your deployment during the scenario demo.