{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

        
User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Resource Management
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Supply Chain
    • Resource Management
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Training

Reducing False Rejects Without Adding Line Complexity

Looking at rules-based vs. AI vision inspection systems

Simon Lieschke/Flickr

Bhuvan Yadav
Bio

SwitchOn

Wed, 07/22/2026 - 12:03
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

False rejects quietly impede manufacturing efficiency, yet most quality teams treat them as an acceptable cost. This article examines why they persist, what makes them hard to eliminate with conventional systems, and how AI-based visual inspection is helping plants address the root cause.

ADVERTISEMENT

The hidden cost nobody tracks closely enough 

Walk through most manufacturing plants and you’ll find an inefficiency sitting right on the quality line: good parts being pulled off as rejects. False rejects, also called false positives, occur when an inspection system flags a conforming product as defective. The part gets pulled, reviewed manually, often cleared, and then reintroduced or scrapped depending on the rework cost.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by dangermoney on Mon, 07/27/2026 - 16:02

Necessary but not sufficient

If your measurement system is not in statistical control, then the first thing to do is to get it into statistical control, so that the measurements that it takes are suitable for process characterisation and product disposition. If your production process is in statistical control, but your specification limits result in the rejection of too much acceptable product, then your specification limits need to be re-evaluated. 

I would never in a million years dispute that machine learning supercharges the effectiveness of using cameras for inspections, but the problems described in this article seem primarily to be caused by a lack of clarity in operational definitions and a lack of statistical control of inspection processes.

The AI solution effectively derives smarter specification limits based on the observed variability of already-accepted product; but that is something that a human could do manually with XmR charts, given the same data. The difference is that the AI software can much more effectively abstract the features of photographs into numerical data streams whose variability can be evaluated, and this is a big advantage over a human attempting to do the same thing. That said, the manufacturer's ignorance of Shewhart/Wheeler-type thinking is still going to carry over into the AI solution and rear its ugly head one way or another. 

Suppose you have one machine operator who smiles all the time, and the yellow light reflected from his many gold teeth causes the product to appear to the camera in a way that violates the assumptions under which the inspection process was designed. Now, suppose that we have the AI camera system instead; wouldn't it still be the case that the inspection data are outside the domain of the training data, and we still run into difficulty correctly dispositioning product? "Machine learning inspection camera" is certainly a big improvement over "vanilla inspection camera," but neither is a substitute for traditional systems thinking, and the former risks being little more than an expensive band-aid if we keep pretending that Shewhart is obsolete. 

  • Reply

Submitted by Steven J Moore (not verified) on Mon, 07/27/2026 - 19:28

In reply to Necessary but not sufficient by dangermoney

You are 100% RIGHT ON!!!  I…

You are 100% RIGHT ON!!!  I was having the same thoughts while reading the article.  

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.

© 2026 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us