I've attached a picture of the coupon that brought up my question yesterday.

The reason for my question and request for clear definition of the evaluation area is that the user (me) can get put in the middle of an argument and may not (probably doesn't) have the expertise to make an educated opinion.  On one side you have the board fabricator saying that it's good - not part of the coupon design etc. and the lab is saying its on the coupon therefore its is rejected.

Bob Naves pointed out that a lab rejection is not the final say.  That's an absolutely correct statement. But how does the end user (again, me) make the decision whether the lab is correct or the fabricator is correct?  Again, its a he-said-she-said argument.  I have been through those arguments and they aren't pretty. These particular boards are 1 ups on a 18 x 26 panel and run north of $10,000 each.  This would be a very bloody contest indeed.

What I'm suggesting is that we define the evaluation area for the coupon. We do this for the thermal zones, why not do it for the entire evaluation zone.

If there is concern that there are issues that might be missed (like these laminate voids) that should be addressed then terminology that says if non-conformances are found outside the evaluation zone a root cause evaluation must be made by the fabricator. 





Pete Menuez
Supplier Quality Engineer
L-3 Communications Cincinnati Electronics
7500 Innovation Way
Mason, Ohio 45040
[log in to unmask]

513-573-6401 Voice
513-573-6767 Fax

 <<IMC20100621-1.jpg>>