Price Escaped Defects Before Buying Factory Inspection AI

02[1] These provide a quality-improvement context.

03They do not establish that a particular AI inspection proposal will reduce costs or that a supplier's products have been tested by dotSuper.

04Define the decision in narrower terms.

05The factory wants to know whether a proposed inspection workflow improves an already approved quality process at a justifiable cost.

06Mandatory customer, regulatory and safety requirements remain constraints on that decision.

07Choose defect classes that the quality team can define consistently.

08A cosmetic return and a safety-related failure should not be combined into one average rupee value.

09The worked model here concerns commercial costs of non-safety-critical cosmetic defects and cannot determine acceptable risks in other situations.

02Record who labelled it, which specification applied and how disagreements were resolved.

03Otherwise a model may appear to improve simply because the reference judgments changed.

04NIST Technical Note 1297 addresses evaluating and expressing measurement uncertainty.

05[2] Measurement uncertainty is not the same as a model's confidence score.

06Where physical measurements support a defect label, the quality team should understand the measurement evidence rather than treating every recorded number as exact.

07NIST's handbook also describes acceptance sampling as a method for deciding the disposition of a lot.

08[3] A cost comparison is a different instrument.

09It should not quietly replace an approved sampling or inspection arrangement merely because the projected monthly saving looks attractive.

02Its current workflow detects 160 and lets forty escape.

03A proposed workflow is assumed to detect 180, leaving twenty escapes.

04These are invented evaluation assumptions, not observed performance.

05Assume each escaped defect costs INR 4,000 commercially, each internally detected defect costs INR 500 to rework, and each false reject costs INR 200 to review.

06False rejects rise from forty to 100.

07The proposed system adds INR 45,000 monthly for operation and allocated implementation costs.

08The proposed workflow saves INR 13,000 monthly in this model.

09Avoided external costs contribute INR 80,000, while extra rework, false-reject review and system costs consume INR 67,000.

10Costs unchanged between options are excluded from both sides; any actual difference would need to be added.

02If that cost is INR 2,000 instead of INR 4,000, preventing twenty escapes saves INR 40,000.

03The additional INR 67,000 then produces a monthly disadvantage of INR 27,000.

04The break-even escape cost is INR 3,350, calculated as INR 67,000 divided by twenty avoided escapes.

05That threshold is specific to these assumptions.

06It is not a recommended value for defects, a customer compensation rate or an acceptable release criterion.

07Challenge the estimated detection improvement as well.

08If the proposed system encounters different finishes, materials or image conditions, its performance may differ from the evaluation set.

09Ask the quality owner what evidence would justify using the assumed counts and what would cause the comparison to be reopened.

02An internal detection may require review and rework.

03Include only costs supported by the business's own records or explicitly labelled assumptions, and avoid counting the same activity twice.

04Ask where the added review work will sit.

05A queue that appears inexpensive on a spreadsheet can delay dispatch if the qualified reviewer is unavailable.

06Price the actual staffing arrangement rather than assuming that an existing employee can absorb unlimited additional work.

07Separate one-time cash expenditure from monthly allocation.

08The INR 45,000 line in the example is deliberately simplified.

09A real purchasing decision should show implementation, licences, maintenance, data preparation and review effort separately.

10State the period over which management allocates the initial investment.

02Keep the defect definitions, reference evidence and cost assumptions fixed enough to compare the alternatives fairly.

03Record uncertainty instead of replacing missing evidence with a vendor's projected saving.

04Review escaped defects, false rejects and unresolved cases separately.

05The cheapest modelled option may still be unsuitable if it fails a mandatory requirement or cannot be supported operationally.

06Financial analysis informs the choice within the permitted quality process; it does not create permission to weaken that process.

07The first useful deliverable is a cost sheet with traceable inputs and a clear evidence gap list.

08It should show which assumption matters most and what information would change the decision.

09That gives an Indian MSME a practical basis for requesting a better demonstration, narrowing the proposed use or declining an investment whose value remains unsupported.