Originally Posted by
Moe Zhoost
Well, well, my thread has progressed in a way that has not disappointed. My simple quality control example has morphed, through inventive assumptions, into a treatise on the economics of manufacturing, labor practices, and of parenting. Nice!
So I didn't include much of the back story on this in my original post because it wasn't really relevant to the QC issue, which was simply that someone could have simply rejected a faulty part during manufacture. I reckon that subsequent QC checks should have caught this issue, as well as the final checks should have at the shop where it was originally sold.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. We don't know that anyone is charged with rejecting faulty parts during manufacture or assembly or that subsequent quality control checks exist or are desired.
Your inventive assumption is that anyone other than the end user is in any way concerned with defective parts. What you suggest could have happened would only have happened if that were a component of the established processes of the manufacturer or vendor. Subsequent QC checks "should" have caught this issues in the world as you wish it to be but the economics of manufacturing at play here do not provide for such a world. The QC issue is that QC comes at a cost and no one wants to absorb that cost.