If a lot is reworked, which original inspection records should we retain?

Keep both. The original report explains why rework was authorized; the later report explains what was verified afterward. Link them through the approved rework scope and the affected stock identifiers, then record a new release decision. Do not overwrite the history to make the lot appear to have passed without intervention.

Keep the original failures and rework scope linked to the same affected population

Retain the original inspection report, failure details, selected-piece identities and the lot status assigned at that time. Attach the authorization describing which population and characteristics were to be reworked. Record any parts removed, replaced or excluded so the post-rework quantity can be reconciled.

Use the quality-agreement guide for the broader allocation of responsibilities. This case concerns record continuity after authorized rework, rather than whether substituting failed sample pieces could create a valid first acceptance. The earlier failure remains relevant even when the corrective work succeeds.

Record approved changes and subsequent verification separately

Request a completion record showing the approved work performed, the responsible organization and the stock covered. If the actual work differed from the approved scope, obtain the appropriate technical review rather than allowing the inspection report to conceal a process change. Do not add unsupported operating or repair details to the buyer’s record.

The subsequent verification should identify what was reassessed and which requirement applied. Ask the technical authority whether the rework could affect other characteristics that need checking. That decision belongs to qualified reviewers, not to a universal rule that only the original failed dimension matters.

Keep original readings, rework records and repeat results distinguishable. A report revision may correct an error, while a new inspection records a changed product condition. Those are different events and should not share an unexplained replacement file. Include the original case reference on the new record so the relationship survives later filing.

Require a new release decision instead of overwriting the original result

Have the authorized reviewer issue a disposition for the identified post-rework population. State the evidence reviewed, any remaining restrictions and the released quantity. A supplier’s statement that rework is complete is an input to that decision, not automatically the buyer’s release authorization.

For the carbide blade rework record, update stores and any affected delivery records to the new status while keeping the earlier hold history accessible. If some pieces were scrapped or replaced, reconcile their identifiers and quantities instead of letting the lot total silently change.

Close the case with a compact record chain: original finding, approved scope, completion evidence, verification and release. Preserve any agreed corrective action separately from the immediate lot decision. That allows future reviewers to understand what happened without reopening every resolved issue or mistaking a successful rework for evidence that no nonconformance ever existed.