Agree on Inspection Criteria and Revision Before Resolving a PCB Dispute

A supplier and customer can reach different inspection decisions because they are applying different criteria. Before debating a photograph, establish the exact requirement baseline for the order. The same feature may have been reviewed using another document revision, class, or customer exception.

IPC’s document revision table identifies published revisions of its standards. Publication status is useful reference information, but it does not by itself identify which edition was invoked for a particular purchase order or approved build.

Assemble the acceptance baseline

Collect the purchase specification, drawing revisions, workmanship standard references, product class where applicable, and any approved exceptions. Record the actual documents used by each inspection team. A shorthand phrase such as “IPC compliant” is insufficient to reconstruct a specific decision.

Identify the feature and observation precisely. Include its location, relevant dimensions or condition, and an image suitable for review where useful. Keep the observation separate from the acceptance conclusion so that both teams evaluate the same evidence. Include the inspection method and relevant viewing or measurement conditions.

Resolve the source of disagreement

Do not resolve a technical disagreement by selecting whichever edition gives the preferred outcome. Establish the governing requirement through the authorized order and engineering process. If the baseline itself is ambiguous, document that ambiguity and obtain a clear disposition.

Record a usable decision

1. Identify the applicable requirement and its source.
2. State the observed condition.
3. Explain how the criterion applies.
4. Record the affected population and disposition.
5. Update inspection instructions where clarification is needed.

Where an image cannot establish the necessary condition, request an appropriate measurement or further examination. A cropped or poorly illuminated photograph may be useful for locating an issue without being sufficient to determine acceptance. State the evidence boundary explicitly.

Keep a resolved interpretation available to both inspection teams, including representative examples when permitted. This helps prevent the same dispute from recurring under different defect names. Review whether previous decisions were affected, rather than changing only the wording of future instructions.

The goal is a shared, traceable acceptance basis. A later publication or training update should trigger a deliberate review of applicable instructions, not silently change the criteria for material already built under an earlier agreed baseline.