Can the supplier replace failed samples and then call the original lot accepted?

Not as a rewrite of the original inspection. Keep the selected pieces and their results in the record. Replacing known failed pieces may be part of an authorized remedy, but the lot still needs disposition under the agreed screening, rework or resubmission procedure. A cleaner sample is not automatically a new valid lot decision.

Retain the original selection and failure results

Freeze the original report, selection list and sample identities. Record the failed characteristics and any disputed measurements separately from the proposed replacement. Ask the supplier exactly what “replace the samples” means: replacing the physical failed items, screening all stock, reworking a defined population, or submitting a new lot.

These options have different scopes. The quality-agreement guide explains broader responsibilities, but the decision here is whether the proposed action addresses the acceptance result or merely removes its visible evidence. Do not let a revised summary omit failures without explaining their disposition.

Apply the agreed screening, rework or resubmission procedure

Consult the inspection plan for the authorized next step. A screening proposal should define which population and characteristics will be checked. A rework proposal needs its own technical approval and subsequent verification. A new submission should identify what has changed and how its relationship to the original lot will remain traceable.

Ask who will verify the proposed action and what evidence will be issued. Do not invent a rule that replacing one failed item is sufficient, nor require a universal inspection percentage that was never part of the agreed process. The quality authority should decide an appropriate path for the specific requirement and risk.

If the supplier disputes the failure itself, handle that as a measurement or interpretation review. A corrected erroneous result is different from replacing a genuinely failed piece. The file should make that distinction clear, including the evidence that justified any correction.

Require a new documented disposition rather than erasing failures by sample substitution

Require a new disposition record that references the first submission and describes the authorized remedy. It should identify the retained, removed, reworked or replacement stock and the inspection basis for the resulting decision. Preserve the first report as history; do not issue a passing version that appears to be the original unchanged sample.

For the carbide blade lot, communicate whether the outcome releases the whole lot, a defined sublot or only replacement items. Keep remaining stock on its existing status until the appropriate authority decides otherwise. Stores should not infer full acceptance from receipt of replacement pieces.

The completion test is simple: a later reviewer can see the original failure, the approved action and the evidence supporting the new decision. If those steps cannot be reconstructed, the substitution has hidden the problem rather than resolved it. This is a recommendation for clear control, not a claim that every failed lot must follow the same contractual remedy.