|
|
|
|
|
by altshiftprtscrn
3475 days ago
|
|
This is pretty spot on. We know why the defects happen and why they cause downstream test failures, but we lack the ability to prevent (all of) them. To clarify on that 95% value because it is admittedly really vague: That's actually a 95% correct prediction rate. So far we get ~2.5% false-positives and ~2.5% false-negatives. 2.5% of the parts evaluated will be incorrectly allowed to continue and will subsequently fail downstream testing (no big deal). More importantly, 2.5% of parts evaluated will be wrongly identified as scrap by the model and tossed, but this still works out to be a massive cost savings because a lot of expensive material/labor is committed to the device before the downstream test. |
|