Record the incident and ask the quality authority whether the sample remains suitable for the required check. Do not silently replace it or assume the damage proves the lot is defective. The decision should distinguish the part’s selected condition from the subsequent handling event and follow the agreed sampling procedure.
Document when and how the sample condition changed
Identify the sample, its selection reference and its condition before the event where records exist. Record the handling incident factually, including when it occurred and what changed visibly. Preserve photographs and packaging or custody information relevant to the assessment. Do not reconstruct an undocumented earlier condition as if it were observed.
Keep the damaged piece clearly separated and identified. The factory-acceptance guide covers the overall acceptance process; this case concerns an exception after selection that could affect whether the sample still answers the intended test question.
Ask the quality authority whether it still represents the lot for the required test
Tell the responsible reviewer which characteristics were to be checked and which areas were affected. A handling event may matter differently to different checks, so do not impose a universal rule that every result is invalid or every unaffected-looking feature can still be accepted. Qualified assessment should determine the usable evidence.
If testing already occurred before the incident, retain those records with their timing. If testing occurs afterward, the changed condition should be disclosed to the inspector or laboratory. Do not repair or conceal the damage merely to restore a normal-looking sample.
Ask whether the event raises a separate handling or packaging concern. That investigation may be worthwhile, but it should remain distinct from the original lot-acceptance question unless evidence connects them. A buyer-caused handling event and an as-received defect must not be merged into an unsupported supplier failure claim.
Replace or retain it only under the sampling plan with a full record of the exception
If replacement is authorized, document why, how the new piece is selected and how it is linked to the original exception. Use the approved plan rather than choosing a visibly favorable replacement. Retain the damaged sample record even when the physical piece is later returned or otherwise disposed of through authorized instructions.
For the carbide blade sample request, include the exception in the inspection report so the sample count and identities remain understandable. State which results belong to the original piece and which belong to its replacement. The final disposition should be based on the agreed evidence, with the handling event neither hidden nor exaggerated.
Close the case when the reviewer has decided the sample’s status, the appropriate testing is complete and the stock records reflect any removed or replacement piece. This preserves the integrity of the selection process while allowing a practical, documented response to an incident that happened after the sample was chosen.
NIST defines sampling through selection and decision procedures. NIST Kinds of Lot Acceptance Sampling Plans ↗
