Not automatically. Approve only the features and production conditions that the sample actually demonstrated. Ask the supplier to identify the hand operations, then agree how the affected features will be verified on parts made through the intended production route.
Identify every manual operation that differs from the production route
Start with a written route comparison rather than the broad description “hand-finished.” Was the sample merely cleaned, or were holes enlarged, faces ground, inserts repositioned or mating surfaces adjusted? Record the sequence and the affected drawing features. Ask whether those operations will also be performed on every production part. A routine finishing operation is a different issue from a one-off correction made to obtain fit.
Keep the sample's original inspection record and any measurements taken after adjustment. If the route is unknown, do not infer it from appearance. The supplier can provide a statement of operations and identify which results came before or after finishing. Use the sample-approval guide for the wider approval programme; this review concerns the gap between the demonstrated sample and the proposed process.
Request production-representative evidence for the affected features
For each difference, write down the evidence needed to close it. A modified mounting feature may call for a production-route dimensional report and a controlled interface check. A change affecting the insert assembly calls for review by the responsible technical specialist. Do not assume a successful mounting demonstration verifies material properties or joint quality.
Ask for parts identified to the actual production route, with the drawing revision and relevant process references attached. Agree who chooses the parts and which acceptance requirements apply before inspecting them. There is no universal number of samples that makes an undocumented process equivalent. The quality owner should select an appropriate verification plan for the affected characteristics and consequences.
A useful comparison has three columns: sample operation, planned production operation and evidence accepted for the difference. It makes unresolved items visible without reopening unrelated aspects of the design.
Limit sample approval to what was demonstrated and qualify the actual batch process
State the approval boundary in ordinary language: the prototype demonstrated the recorded interface on the identified configuration; production release remains subject to the listed verification. Avoid a blanket “sample approved” stamp when that wording could be read as permission to omit the pending checks. Confirm that the supplier understands what it may manufacture and what it may ship.
Attach the comparison to the carbide blade specification, together with the agreed production evidence and the person authorized to close each issue. If new production parts need the same manual adjustment, ask whether the route is being changed or whether the parts are nonconforming to the existing plan. Do not normalize that adjustment by quietly modifying the sample record.
Once the evidence is reviewed, issue a dated decision tied to the relevant part revision and manufacturing route. Retain the hand-finished sample as a development reference if useful, but label its status so receiving staff do not mistake it for proof that every production blade follows the demonstrated process.
NIST distinguishes lot disposition from estimating lot quality. NIST What Is Acceptance Sampling? ↗
