02 · Incorrect assembly

The part is in place — just facing the wrong way.

Detecting reversed, displaced or incorrectly seated parts — a defect that differs from a missing component in that the part is present, just in the wrong orientation or position.

Unlike a missing component, an assembly defect requires the model to tell not just "is something there" but "is it there in the right orientation and position". This is usually harder than detecting absence, because the difference between correct and defective assembly can be geometrically subtle.

That is why training data has to cover the real assembly-error variants that actually occur on the line — not just one "textbook" example of reversal. During the pilot we agree with you which error variants are critical and which are cosmetic, and that shapes how decision thresholds are chosen.

As with other scenarios, the final decision is made locally at the Production station, with no need to send images outside the plant.

When this scenario usually works well

01 The wrong orientation or position is visible from the camera angle used in inspection
02 Real examples of assembly-error variants exist, not just one case
03 The difference between correct and defective assembly is visible at the available camera resolution
04 The process has defined which error variants are critical to product function

What the pilot report shows

Because assembly errors can vary, validation measures accuracy separately per defect variant where those have been defined — not just a single "defect vs. no defect" result.

How this works in practice

AIVQC Trainer → AIVQC Server → AIVQC Production

FAQ

Incorrect assembly

Does each error variant need a separately trained model?+

Not necessarily — it depends on how visually different the variants are. This is decided during data preparation in Trainer, before the actual training run.

What if the assembly error is only visible from one awkward angle?+

Retrofit-first means we first check whether the existing camera and its position allow that. If not, the pilot report states exactly where the limitation lies.

Other applications

Missing component

Checking assembly completeness and the presence of required components — one of the most common enquiries, because a missing component is easy to miss at line speed and easy to show unambiguously in an image.

↗03

Flash and deformation

Identifying moulding, geometry and product-edge defects — a classic example of an irregular defect, where classic geometric rules quickly stop being enough.

↗04

Cracks and damage

Visually detecting scratches, cracks and surface damage — a defect where the stakes can be high, since damage may affect both function and visual appearance.

↗05

Labels and print

Verifying the presence, orientation and legibility of markings — a scenario that combines a completeness check (is the label there at all) with a print-quality check (is it legible and correctly placed).

↗06

Contamination

Detecting foreign objects, dirt and surface deviations — inherently the most unpredictable scenario, since contamination can take almost any shape.

↗