From experience, we’re talking about two very different lists here.
Troubleshooting threads develop naturally here — there are a surprising number already:
http://budgetlightforum.com/search?q_as=troubleshooting
Someone who has all four kinds of lights and knows more than me, I trust, will do one.
I’d try to be helpful; I don’t have CU/SS lights nor knowledge of how we got to here.
————a thought for NEXT time, this would have to be agreed in advance—————
(I’d like to see troubleshooting by group purchasers become a firewall for the retailer — require participating first. Identify problems, identify who sees the problems, work on the problems. Once there’s enough to identify unfixable problems, those get assessed as either “live with it, it’s good enough” or “retailer should really have caught that” and handled appropriately. That would cut down on the parasitism by people who just try to get more for their money.)
I was thinking of the other sort of list, nonpublic
That’s QA/QC “punch lists” during development and production — a checklist, that everyone handling samples should update
What’s deadly is people seeing flaws, thinking “that’s not my responsibility” and not mentioning them to the rest of the crew.
Stuff slips by that way. That’s a shared (non-public) place the crew can (must) note: “hey, I noticed X, is it covered?”
That’s really two lists.
Some things QA finds can be fixed; others don’t get corrected — slop in a tool, or unpredictability in a component, or someone’s dropping copper parts into a bin, etc.
Those that QA done early can minimize get fixed.
What QA finds and can’t fix — there will always be some — is the beginning of the QC list (also nonpublic, probably people at the retailer)
“Look for X — there are a few — and pull them out of the stream.”
That’s an industrial-size approach to tracking details that easily get lost. A lot of people here know more about how to do that.
I mostly have experience with checking facts and writing errors of many different kinds, text lists of DNA sequences, for example.
(Get one base pair wrong and I could have been responsible for creating a monster).
Did you know you can define DNA sequences as words to spellcheck? Very handy …
Hardware adds a lot of handling problems. We’ll get better.
What QC isn’t reliably catching should become the (first) public list — a starting point for the troubleshooting group — that’s “Charlie Test” and the place to publish the known workarounds that the private list folks already know, and add to them.
Lather, rinse, repeat …