Your Gages Are Qualified. Is Your AI?
Every claim we've made this month has a number behind it we're willing to show you. That wasn't an accident — it's the point.
The Standard We Held Ourselves To
We didn't publish “AI improves quality” and move on. We ran Reasoning R&R™ on our own 8D grading workflow, the same way you'd qualify a gage before trusting its reading: 2,370 individual grading decisions, 93.2% repeatability, 99% reproducibility between reviewers, measured against a 36.67% baseline for unaided human agreement in a published automotive study.
Why This Should Be the Bar, Not the Exception
Manufacturing doesn't let a gage into the process until it's proven repeatable and reproducible. There's no reason AI grading quality work should get a lower standard than the tools it's supposed to be better than. If a vendor tells you their AI improves quality decisions, the fair question back is the same one we asked ourselves: has it been qualified, and can you show your work?
Where This Goes Next
October, we're taking Reasoning R&R™ into individual plants — not as a canned demo, but on your own 8Ds, PPAPs, and supplier submissions.
Comments