Paper cup defect classification and containment serves two different decisions: describing the observed failure and controlling the output that may share it. A label such as “sealing problem” can be too broad for either purpose. Describe the defect against an accepted requirement, preserve its evidence and establish a justified affected boundary before declaring a cause.
Define the defect using a reference and method
Identify the cup specification, drawing revision, customer requirement and applicable inspection method. Describe the visible or measured result: location, orientation, appearance and test conditions. Include a marked sample or image that can be traced to its job and production period.
Separate observation from hypothesis. Leakage at the base does not by itself prove an incorrect temperature, material fault or worn tool. Use the leakage and quality guide to organize the investigation, while recording any suspected cause as unconfirmed until the evidence supports it.
Use categories that support a decision
Agree defect categories and severity definitions with the customer and quality function. Avoid assigning universal acceptance limits to every market or cup application. The purpose of classification is to make inspection and reaction consistent, not to force unfamiliar defects into an old label.
| Defect record | What to capture | Decision supported |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement | Drawing, specification and method revision | What constitutes failure? |
| Observation | Exact result and defect location | Is the description reproducible? |
| Identity | Job, material lots and sample time | Which output may share the condition? |
| Category | Approved defect name and severity | Which reaction applies? |
| Status | Held quantity, location and identification | Can suspect cups be prevented from release? |
| Investigation | Changes, process observations and comparisons | Which explanations fit the evidence? |
| Disposition | Authorized decision and supporting results | What happens to the held output? |
If one sample shows several defects, record the counting rule. Counting defective cups and counting individual defects produces different totals. Preserve that distinction when comparing results across shifts.
Establish a containment boundary
Start from the last relevant accepted evidence and the first detected failure, then consider material changes, tooling positions and intervening output. Record the basis and uncertainty of the boundary. If the available records are incomplete, do not claim an exact affected quantity without qualification.
Identify cups awaiting packing, packed cartons, warehouse stock and any shipments potentially connected to the issue. The batch traceability guide supports this backward and forward review. Containment scope can expand or narrow as evidence improves, with the reason recorded.
Assign visible hold status and a responsible owner. Prevent an unreviewed movement or repacking operation from erasing the identity of suspect output. If sorting is proposed, define what the method can actually detect and how its result will be verified; do not assume every defect is visible to a sorter.
Release only after an authorized disposition
An equipment adjustment addresses the process, not automatically the cups already produced. Keep suspect-product disposition separate from the machine's return to operation. Record reinspection, permitted rework, rejection or other authorized action according to the applicable requirements.
Use the nonconforming product disposition guide for a detailed status review. Confirm that the action taken accounts for the identified quantities and locations.
After restoring production, verify output against the approved reference and reaction plan. Track recurrence under comparable conditions before declaring the corrective action effective. A short run without a visible defect is useful evidence, but its scope should remain explicit.
Frequently asked questions
Does a defect name identify its root cause?
No. The name describes the observed failure. Material, equipment and process explanations require separate investigation.
Can the affected batch be limited to the first rejected sample?
Use production history and acceptance evidence to define the boundary. One sampled cup does not establish the full extent of exposure.
Should every held cup be scrapped?
Apply the authorized disposition process and applicable product requirements. Do not invent a universal decision for all defect types.
Does fixing the machine release the held stock?
No. Equipment readiness and product disposition are separate decisions with their own evidence and authority.
Send HANNAI identified samples and production context when requesting a machine-related investigation.