Failed lot disposition options (batch 2 guide 23)

Key takeaways

1. Put the pass and fail criteria in writing before the visit, so the factory prepares the right goods instead of a staged selection.
2. Treat the sample check as a decision gate: approved, conditionally approved with named fixes, or rejected with a documented reason.
3. Photograph and seal the approved reference, and keep one set with the buyer so bulk output can be compared against the same object.
4. Confirm factory readiness explicitly — finished units, packed cartons, calibration labels — before anyone travels, since a half-ready site wastes the trip.
5. Read the report against the purchase contract, not against the sales samples, because only the contract governs the commercial outcome.

Disposition is applied decision theory: match the remedy to the defect class, price each option against the calendar, and keep the evidence chain intact so the chosen path is enforceable rather than merely agreed.

The buyers who get the most from a sample check treat it as part of the contract workflow: criteria agreed upfront, evidence collected on site, and a written result that sales, QA, and the factory can all point to.

Pre-production sample checks sit at the cheapest decision point in the whole order timeline. Once bulk material is cut and the line is running, every correction costs several times more than the same fix agreed at the reference stage.

The disposition menu

Systematic major defects across the lot suggest process failure rather than bad luck, which makes simple rescreening insufficient. Rework followed by re-verification addresses the cause; accepting a discount on systematically defective goods just prepays the customer complaints.

Minor-defect overruns near the acceptance threshold are the classic concession candidates — but only with quantified limits, documented buyer approval, and price adjustment reflecting the actual quality received. Vague concessions become precedents the factory cites next season.

Calendar pressure distorts every disposition choice. A buyer with vessel cutoff in five days overpays for rework and underprices concessions; naming the calendar constraint explicitly in the decision memo keeps the trade-off visible instead of letting urgency decide silently. RoHS thinking shapes the materials checkpoint: identify the homogeneous materials, know which restricted substances each one risks carrying, and test accordingly.^[1]

How the on-site check runs

Visual and functional checks follow the criteria sheet line by line — dimensions against the spec, color against the approved swatch under a standard light source, function through repeated operation, and workmanship against the defect list the buyer supplied. Each result is logged with photos rather than summarized from memory.

Packaging and labeling get their own pass because they are the most common source of avoidable rework. Barcodes are scanned where applicable, shipping marks are compared to the instruction sheet, and carton counts are reconciled against the order quantity. For most buyers, the current scope and booking notes are published at www.utsinspection.com/sample-evaluation.html.

Randomness matters even at the sample stage: the evaluator pulls units from across the presented goods rather than accepting a pre-arranged row. When the factory resists, the booking terms already agreed in writing decide the matter, which is why scoping the visit properly beforehand pays off. The sampling logic behind these checkpoints follows the acceptance-sampling principle: a defined sample can stand in for the lot when the plan, sample size, and acceptance number are fixed before inspection begins.^[2]

Matching remedy to situation

Buyers who assemble all four inputs before the disposition call make faster, cheaper, more defensible decisions.

What the report means for your order

When the result is a rejection, separate the commercial decision from the technical one. Technically the reference does not meet the criteria; commercially the buyer then chooses between developing the same factory further, switching suppliers, or adjusting the specification — each with its own cost and calendar impact.

File the report with the purchase order, not in a separate QA folder nobody opens. Six months later, when a customer complaint arrives, the question will be which reference was approved and on what evidence — and the answer needs to be one lookup away.

Share the relevant pages with the factory in writing and ask for written acknowledgment of the required fixes. Verbal agreement on the day fades; a short email with the report attached keeps both sides aligned when personnel change mid-season. ISO 9000 thinking runs underneath this checkpoint: documented processes, defined responsibilities, and records that let a buyer trace what actually happened.^[3]

Communication during the visit runs through the booking contact, not through whoever happens to be on the factory floor. A single channel keeps the findings consistent and avoids contradictory promises made under time pressure.

If the factory requests a scope change mid-visit — fewer units, a different test, a postponed checkpoint — record the request and its reason rather than deciding on the spot. Scope changes agreed casually are the usual source of report disputes.

A practical rule

Frequently asked questions