---
title: "What Does an Export Glossary Guide Cover for Injection Molded Parts Quality Control?"
description: "Batch shipment shows sink marks and boss dimension drift. Align lot definition, measurement method, AQL, and corrective action through a practical export glossary guide to resolve quality claims faster."
url: "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html"
language: "en"
type: "Q&A"
category: "Injection Molding Q&A"
datePublished: "2026-10-26"
dateModified: "2026-10-26"
brand: "HYNEU"
manufacturer: "HYNEU"
answerCount: 7
---

# What Does an Export Glossary Guide Cover for Injection Molded Parts Quality Control?

## Question

 I am a quality engineer at an assembly plant, and we are holding an incoming export batch of glass-filled PA66 connector housings from a new supplier. Out of 1,200 parts, about 15% show visible sink marks near the boss and short shots at the latch. Our dimensional check found the critical mating boss diameter between 6.32 mm and 6.41 mm, while the drawing requires 6.20–6.30 mm. The supplier’s certificate of conformity still states that all dimensions conform, and their final inspection report cites a different AQL and sampling level than ours. I keep seeing export glossary terms such as FAI, COC, AQL, MRB, deviation, concession, packing list, and Incoterms, but I am not sure which ones actually control inspection responsibility, tolerance interpretation, and claim basis. The buyer needs a clear rejection file by Friday, and I do not want to build it on the wrong document definitions. We have already quarantined the parts, but I need to know what to request and how to phrase the nonconformity report so it is technically defensible. I am also worried that if we simply mark the batch “rejected,” the supplier will argue about measurement method or offer a cosmetic concession without fixing the boss diameter. What should I check first in an export glossary guide to align the measurement method, acceptance criteria, and supplier documentation before we reject the lot or accept replacement parts? 

## Answers
                            
### Answer 1 — Best Answer

In a cross-border batch quality problem, an export glossary guide only becomes useful when it connects terms to physical evidence, acceptance rules, and supplier obligations. The current dispute is not mainly a vocabulary issue. It is an alignment issue: the supplier’s certificate of conformity says one thing, while the received parts show another. That usually means the two sides are using different definitions for a lot, a defect, a critical dimension, or a measurement method.

The first step is to separate commercial and transport terms from technical quality terms. Incoterms, packing list, bill of lading, and customs value explain transfer of goods and documentation flow. They do not answer whether a boss diameter of 6.32–6.41 mm is acceptable against a drawing range of 6.20–6.30 mm. The quality decision must use terms such as first article inspection, CMM report, AQL, critical dimension, nonconformity report, deviation, concession, and 8D corrective action.

In this case, the most likely causes of the conflict are threefold. The supplier may have measured a different part, used a different datum or stylus position, or reported an average instead of individual readings. The certificate of conformity may have been generated from a pre-shipment sample that was not representative of the later production batch. The sampling plan may also have accepted the batch under a general AQL while the critical boss dimension required a tighter inspection level. The sink marks and short shots suggest process instability, but the dimensional issue must be handled separately from appearance defects because it affects assembly function.

The first practical action is to **align the lot definition, sampling plan, and measurement method** with the supplier before rejecting the entire shipment. Request the full dimensional layout report, not a summary. Ask whether dimensions were checked with a CMM, caliper, or a dedicated fixture, and at which points on the boss were measured. For a boss diameter, out-of-roundness and draft angle can produce different readings depending on the measurement height. Ask the supplier to re-measure the same retained samples using an agreed datum and report maximum, minimum, and average values.

The second action is to check whether the first article inspection data from the approved sample differs from the current batch. If the boss was on the accepted FAI report but now fails, the tooling, material, or process changed. Request the cavity number, machine number, shift, raw material lot, and production date for the rejected parts. This traceability information matters because injection molded parts can vary cavity to cavity. A cavity-by-cavity layout report will show whether the high boss diameter and short shots are concentrated in one cavity or spread across the mold. If concentrated, the problem may be a worn gate, blocked vent, or cavity imbalance; if spread, it is more likely a material or processing change.

The third action is to issue a formal nonconformity report with clear evidence. Keep retained samples, photograph the short shots and sink marks with part ID and cavity mark visible, and record the exact measurement setup. A claim based only on the supplier’s certificate of conformity is weak. The claim should state the drawing revision, the characteristic, the specified tolerance, the actual readings, the sample size, and the measurement method. Use the export glossary to define the defect classification. For example, a critical dimension that affects assembly should be classified as critical or major, meaning acceptance may require a tighter AQL. A cosmetic sink mark may be major or minor depending on the customer’s visual standard.

Do not accept a deviation or concession until the functional risk is evaluated. A deviation for the boss diameter may be acceptable only if the mating connector housing and retention force remain within specification. Ask the supplier to provide dimensional stack-up analysis or test results with the actual mating part. For sink marks in a visible area, agree on boundary samples and surface finish requirements rather than using general words such as “no sink marks.”

For the replacement or rework batch, require **cavity-by-cavity dimensional reports** and process parameter records before shipment. Ask the supplier to update the control plan and inspection report to match the agreed export quality terms. For PA66 glass-filled material, also confirm the drying record and regrind ratio, because moisture and regrind can change viscosity and shrinkage. Finally, create a simple quality glossary annex to the purchase order or quality agreement. It should define lot, critical dimension, measurement method, AQL, FAI, COC, NCR, deviation, concession, and rework acceptance rules. A shared glossary prevents the next dispute from becoming a debate about words instead of parts.

Long-term prevention should be built into the first production approval. Before mass production, agree on the inspection standard, sampling plan, cavity identification, visual boundary samples, and dimensional report format. If the current batch cannot be accepted under the aligned criteria, containment may include 100% sorting of the boss diameter and visual inspection of latch areas. But sorting is not the correction; the supplier still needs an 8D report and corrective action evidence before the next lot is approved.

**status:** accepted
**Author:** Marcus He
**Date:** 2026-10-26

### Answer 2

When a certificate of conformity conflicts with received parts, the fastest way to narrow the cause is to ask for a cavity-by-cavity dimensional layout. Injection molded parts from a multi-cavity mold can show local defects such as short shots or sink marks in only one or two cavities.

If the 6.32–6.41 mm boss readings appear in specific cavity numbers, the likely issue is cavity imbalance, gate wear, vent blockage, or localized cooling variation rather than a general material or process change.

The export glossary should define cavity ID, tooling revision, mold trial report, and dimensional layout. Request the supplier map every rejected part back to its cavity number and provide maximum, minimum, and range per cavity, not a combined average.

Also check whether the mold has been modified after the approved first article. A steel repair or gate change may shift filling behavior and boss diameter even if no drawing revision was made.

Before sorting or reworking, agree on the measurement fixture. A CMM with a different stylus diameter or probe direction can create small but meaningful differences on a small boss diameter.

The evaluation should use the same measurement height, datum, and out-of-roundness method. If cavity-to-cavity variability is high, the replacement lot should not be accepted until the supplier improves mold balance and demonstrates stable Cp or Cpk values per cavity.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Owen Jiang
**Date:** 2026-10-26

### Answer 3

Physical defects like short shots and sink marks often indicate that the rejected lot was not produced under stable process conditions. A certificate of conformity may be based on final inspection of a selected sample, but it does not prove the entire production run was under control.

In an export quality discussion, the terms lot traceability, shift record, process parameter sheet, machine number, and cycle time should be fixed before the claim is closed.

The first check is whether the supplier can link the rejected parts to a specific machine, shift, start-up period, or operator. Ask for the process parameter record for the exact production date, including melt temperature, injection pressure, holding pressure, holding time, cooling time, and cushion position.

Short shots at the latch and sink marks near the boss often result from insufficient packing or a frozen gate, which will show up as lower holding pressure or shorter holding time compared with the approved sample.

For the next lot, require the parameter sheet to be submitted with the dimensional report. A process audit should confirm whether start-up parts were separated from steady-state production and whether granulator regrind or material changes were recorded.

If the supplier cannot provide this traceability, accepting reworked or replacement parts remains risky because the root cause has not been shown to be controlled.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Irene Tang
**Date:** 2026-10-26

### Answer 4

For a glass-filled PA66 connector housing, the material condition affects both fill behavior and final dimensions. The export glossary should link the certificate of conformity to the raw material lot certificate, drying record, regrind percentage, and processing guide.

A COC that states all dimensions conform is weak unless it confirms the same resin grade, filler content, and moisture condition used during approval.

Short shots and sink marks together can point to a viscosity shift. If the supplier dried the material poorly or used a higher regrind ratio, flow length may drop and packing may become less effective.

A boss measured 6.32–6.41 mm against 6.20–6.30 mm can also be affected by shrinkage change from filler distribution. Request the raw material lot certificate and compare melt flow rate or viscosity data with the approved batch. Ask for the drying temperature, drying time, and dew point record before molding.

For replacement parts, the supplier should confirm the exact material grade and batch, and include the material certificate as part of the inspection package.

If regrind is allowed, set a maximum percentage and require that it be from the same production lot. Without this, each new shipment may repeat the same appearance and dimensional drift.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Victor Luo
**Date:** 2026-10-26

### Answer 5

The dimensional dispute should be reviewed against the drawing interpretation before a rejection decision is finalized. The export glossary should define GD&T, datum, feature control frame, unilateral tolerance, and critical dimension.

A boss diameter specified as 6.20–6.30 mm may be measured differently depending on draft angle, measurement height, and whether the supplier used a caliper instead of a CMM. Ask which drawing revision and standard apply, such as ISO 2768 or ASME Y14.5.

Sink marks near the boss and a slightly oversize boss diameter may be connected: if the wall section is too thick, shrinkage creates sink marks and can also distort the local diameter.

The design should be checked for wall thickness transition, draft, and corner radius. If the part is at the edge of toolability, the supplier may need to adjust gate location or add a flow leader rather than only changing process parameters.

For appearance defects, visual evaluation needs boundary samples and defined viewing distance, lighting, and surface finish. Terms such as “no sink marks” are too vague for an export claim. Agree on photographed limit samples for sink mark depth and short shot area.

For the boss diameter, confirm the function with the mating component. If the assembly still retains the pin securely, a controlled concession may be possible, but only after dimensional stack-up is documented.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Claire Ren
**Date:** 2026-10-26

### Answer 6

A batch showing both short shots at the latch and sink marks near the boss often has a mold filling and packing problem, not only a production deviation.

In the export glossary, terms such as gate type, gate size, runner, cold slug, weld line, flow mark, and mold flow analysis describe the conditions that must be checked before accepting rework. The supplier should explain how the latch and boss area are filled and packed.

If the gate is too small or located far from the boss, the gate may freeze early, preventing adequate packing pressure from reaching the thick section. That can cause sink marks at the boss and short shots at the thinner latch if the flow path is unbalanced.

The supplier should provide a mold flow image showing fill time, pressure drop, and sink mark index for the current tool. Compare it with the mold trial report and gate dimensions.

For the rejected batch, the immediate task is not to modify the mold without data. Keep the retained samples and ask the supplier to identify cavity-specific patterns. If the defects repeat in all cavities, gate or runner changes may be needed.

If only one cavity fails, venting or cooling may be the issue. Before the next lot, a joint tooling review should define the gate location, runner size, and acceptable sink mark criteria using the same export terms so that the claim file remains technically clear.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Nathan Guo
**Date:** 2026-10-26

### Answer 7

A 15% defect rate in an incoming batch is not a borderline sampling issue; it is a systemic yield problem. The export glossary should define AQL, yield, FMEA, control plan, MSA, 8D, and CAPA so the supplier cannot use a favorable sampling level to hide batch instability.

For a critical boss dimension, acceptance should not rely on the same AQL as a minor cosmetic characteristic.

The first priority is containment. Ask the supplier to confirm the quantity in your warehouse, third-party warehouse, and in transit, then perform 100% sorting of the boss diameter and latch area. The sorting method and gauge should be agreed, not left to the supplier’s internal interpretation.

For the dimensional issue, request a measurement system analysis because different CMMs and operators can create repeatability differences. If the two labs do not agree, the rejection file will be weakened.

After containment, require an 8D report with root cause evidence, not a generic corrective action form. The supplier should update the process FMEA and control plan, add the boss diameter and short shot appearance to the in-process inspection, and demonstrate capability on new samples.

Only after the corrected process is stable should the export release be approved. The goal is not only to resolve this lot but to ensure the next production run uses the same quality terms and acceptance rules.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Henry Cao
**Date:** 2026-10-26

## Related Resources

- [Injection Molding Q&A](https://www.hyneu.com/questions/injection-molding/)
- [Plastic Injection Molding](https://www.hyneu.com/capabilities/injection-molding/)
- [Injection Molding Buying Guides](https://www.hyneu.com/buying-guides/injection-molding/)
- [Injection Molding Guide](https://www.hyneu.com/guides/injection-molding/)
- [Custom Manufacturing](https://www.hyneu.com/custom-manufacturing/)
- [Products](https://www.hyneu.com/products/)
- [Manufacturing Defects](https://www.hyneu.com/knowledge/manufacturing-defects/)
- [Mold & Tooling](https://www.hyneu.com/knowledge/mold-tooling/)

## Structured Data

```json
[
    {
      "@context": "https://schema.org",
      "@type": "QAPage",
      "mainEntity": {
        "@type": "Question",
        "name": "What Does an Export Glossary Guide Cover for Injection Molded Parts Quality Control?",
        "text": "I am a quality engineer at an assembly plant, and we are holding an incoming export batch of glass-filled PA66 connector housings from a new supplier. Out of 1,200 parts, about 15% show visible sink marks near the boss and short shots at the latch. Our dimensional check found the critical mating boss diameter between 6.32 mm and 6.41 mm, while the drawing requires 6.20–6.30 mm. The supplier’s certificate of conformity still states that all dimensions conform, and their final inspection report cites a different AQL and sampling level than ours. I keep seeing export glossary terms such as FAI, COC, AQL, MRB, deviation, concession, packing list, and Incoterms, but I am not sure which ones actually control inspection responsibility, tolerance interpretation, and claim basis. The buyer needs a clear rejection file by Friday, and I do not want to build it on the wrong document definitions. We have already quarantined the parts, but I need to know what to request and how to phrase the nonconformity report so it is technically defensible. I am also worried that if we simply mark the batch “rejected,” the supplier will argue about measurement method or offer a cosmetic concession without fixing the boss diameter. What should I check first in an export glossary guide to align the measurement method, acceptance criteria, and supplier documentation before we reject the lot or accept replacement parts?",
        "answerCount": 7,
        "upvoteCount": 9,
        "datePublished": "2026-10-26T09:49:25Z",
        "dateModified": "2026-10-26T09:56:33Z",
        "author": {
          "@type": "Person",
          "name": "Anonymous",
          "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html"
        }
                ,"acceptedAnswer": {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "In a cross-border batch quality problem, an export glossary guide only becomes useful when it connects terms to physical evidence, acceptance rules, and supplier obligations. The current dispute is not mainly a vocabulary issue. It is an alignment issue: the supplier’s certificate of conformity says one thing, while the received parts show another. That usually means the two sides are using different definitions for a lot, a defect, a critical dimension, or a measurement method. The first step is to separate commercial and transport terms from technical quality terms. Incoterms, packing list, bill of lading, and customs value explain transfer of goods and documentation flow. They do not answer whether a boss diameter of 6.32–6.41 mm is acceptable against a drawing range of 6.20–6.30 mm. The quality decision must use terms such as first article inspection, CMM report, AQL, critical dimension, nonconformity report, deviation, concession, and 8D corrective action. In this case, the most likely causes of the conflict are threefold. The supplier may have measured a different part, used a different datum or stylus position, or reported an average instead of individual readings. The certificate of conformity may have been generated from a pre-shipment sample that was not representative of the later production batch. The sampling plan may also have accepted the batch under a general AQL while the critical boss dimension required a tighter inspection level. The sink marks and short shots suggest process instability, but the dimensional issue must be handled separately from appearance defects because it affects assembly function. The first practical action is to align the lot definition, sampling plan, and measurement method with the supplier before rejecting the entire shipment. Request the full dimensional layout report, not a summary. Ask whether dimensions were checked with a CMM, caliper, or a dedicated fixture, and at which points on the boss were measured. For a boss diameter, out-of-roundness and draft angle can produce different readings depending on the measurement height. Ask the supplier to re-measure the same retained samples using an agreed datum and report maximum, minimum, and average values. The second action is to check whether the first article inspection data from the approved sample differs from the current batch. If the boss was on the accepted FAI report but now fails, the tooling, material, or process changed. Request the cavity number, machine number, shift, raw material lot, and production date for the rejected parts. This traceability information matters because injection molded parts can vary cavity to cavity. A cavity-by-cavity layout report will show whether the high boss diameter and short shots are concentrated in one cavity or spread across the mold. If concentrated, the problem may be a worn gate, blocked vent, or cavity imbalance; if spread, it is more likely a material or processing change. The third action is to issue a formal nonconformity report with clear evidence. Keep retained samples, photograph the short shots and sink marks with part ID and cavity mark visible, and record the exact measurement setup. A claim based only on the supplier’s certificate of conformity is weak. The claim should state the drawing revision, the characteristic, the specified tolerance, the actual readings, the sample size, and the measurement method. Use the export glossary to define the defect classification. For example, a critical dimension that affects assembly should be classified as critical or major, meaning acceptance may require a tighter AQL. A cosmetic sink mark may be major or minor depending on the customer’s visual standard. Do not accept a deviation or concession until the functional risk is evaluated. A deviation for the boss diameter may be acceptable only if the mating connector housing and retention force remain within specification. Ask the supplier to provide dimensional stack-up analysis or test results with the actual mating part. For sink marks in a visible area, agree on boundary samples and surface finish requirements rather than using general words such as “no sink marks.” For the replacement or rework batch, require cavity-by-cavity dimensional reports and process parameter records before shipment. Ask the supplier to update the control plan and inspection report to match the agreed export quality terms. For PA66 glass-filled material, also confirm the drying record and regrind ratio, because moisture and regrind can change viscosity and shrinkage. Finally, create a simple quality glossary annex to the purchase order or quality agreement. It should define lot, critical dimension, measurement method, AQL, FAI, COC, NCR, deviation, concession, and rework acceptance rules. A shared glossary prevents the next dispute from becoming a debate about words instead of parts. Long-term prevention should be built into the first production approval. Before mass production, agree on the inspection standard, sampling plan, cavity identification, visual boundary samples, and dimensional report format. If the current batch cannot be accepted under the aligned criteria, containment may include 100% sorting of the boss diameter and visual inspection of latch areas. But sorting is not the correction; the supplier still needs an 8D report and corrective action evidence before the next lot is approved.",
            "upvoteCount": 9,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html#acceptedAnswer",
            "datePublished": "2026-10-26T10:22:20Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Marcus He","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/marcus-he.html"}        }
                ,"suggestedAnswer": [
                  {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "When a certificate of conformity conflicts with received parts, the fastest way to narrow the cause is to ask for a cavity-by-cavity dimensional layout. Injection molded parts from a multi-cavity mold can show local defects such as short shots or sink marks in only one or two cavities. If the 6.32–6.41 mm boss readings appear in specific cavity numbers, the likely issue is cavity imbalance, gate wear, vent blockage, or localized cooling variation rather than a general material or process change. The export glossary should define cavity ID, tooling revision, mold trial report, and dimensional layout. Request the supplier map every rejected part back to its cavity number and provide maximum, minimum, and range per cavity, not a combined average. Also check whether the mold has been modified after the approved first article. A steel repair or gate change may shift filling behavior and boss diameter even if no drawing revision was made. Before sorting or reworking, agree on the measurement fixture. A CMM with a different stylus diameter or probe direction can create small but meaningful differences on a small boss diameter. The evaluation should use the same measurement height, datum, and out-of-roundness method. If cavity-to-cavity variability is high, the replacement lot should not be accepted until the supplier improves mold balance and demonstrates stable Cp or Cpk values per cavity.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html#suggestedAnswer-2",
            "datePublished": "2026-10-26T10:21:30Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Owen Jiang","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/owen-jiang.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "Physical defects like short shots and sink marks often indicate that the rejected lot was not produced under stable process conditions. A certificate of conformity may be based on final inspection of a selected sample, but it does not prove the entire production run was under control. In an export quality discussion, the terms lot traceability, shift record, process parameter sheet, machine number, and cycle time should be fixed before the claim is closed. The first check is whether the supplier can link the rejected parts to a specific machine, shift, start-up period, or operator. Ask for the process parameter record for the exact production date, including melt temperature, injection pressure, holding pressure, holding time, cooling time, and cushion position. Short shots at the latch and sink marks near the boss often result from insufficient packing or a frozen gate, which will show up as lower holding pressure or shorter holding time compared with the approved sample. For the next lot, require the parameter sheet to be submitted with the dimensional report. A process audit should confirm whether start-up parts were separated from steady-state production and whether granulator regrind or material changes were recorded. If the supplier cannot provide this traceability, accepting reworked or replacement parts remains risky because the root cause has not been shown to be controlled.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html#suggestedAnswer-3",
            "datePublished": "2026-10-26T10:16:32Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Irene Tang","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/irene-tang.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "For a glass-filled PA66 connector housing, the material condition affects both fill behavior and final dimensions. The export glossary should link the certificate of conformity to the raw material lot certificate, drying record, regrind percentage, and processing guide. A COC that states all dimensions conform is weak unless it confirms the same resin grade, filler content, and moisture condition used during approval. Short shots and sink marks together can point to a viscosity shift. If the supplier dried the material poorly or used a higher regrind ratio, flow length may drop and packing may become less effective. A boss measured 6.32–6.41 mm against 6.20–6.30 mm can also be affected by shrinkage change from filler distribution. Request the raw material lot certificate and compare melt flow rate or viscosity data with the approved batch. Ask for the drying temperature, drying time, and dew point record before molding. For replacement parts, the supplier should confirm the exact material grade and batch, and include the material certificate as part of the inspection package. If regrind is allowed, set a maximum percentage and require that it be from the same production lot. Without this, each new shipment may repeat the same appearance and dimensional drift.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html#suggestedAnswer-4",
            "datePublished": "2026-10-26T10:04:40Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Victor Luo","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/victor-luo.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "The dimensional dispute should be reviewed against the drawing interpretation before a rejection decision is finalized. The export glossary should define GD&T, datum, feature control frame, unilateral tolerance, and critical dimension. A boss diameter specified as 6.20–6.30 mm may be measured differently depending on draft angle, measurement height, and whether the supplier used a caliper instead of a CMM. Ask which drawing revision and standard apply, such as ISO 2768 or ASME Y14.5. Sink marks near the boss and a slightly oversize boss diameter may be connected: if the wall section is too thick, shrinkage creates sink marks and can also distort the local diameter. The design should be checked for wall thickness transition, draft, and corner radius. If the part is at the edge of toolability, the supplier may need to adjust gate location or add a flow leader rather than only changing process parameters. For appearance defects, visual evaluation needs boundary samples and defined viewing distance, lighting, and surface finish. Terms such as “no sink marks” are too vague for an export claim. Agree on photographed limit samples for sink mark depth and short shot area. For the boss diameter, confirm the function with the mating component. If the assembly still retains the pin securely, a controlled concession may be possible, but only after dimensional stack-up is documented.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html#suggestedAnswer-5",
            "datePublished": "2026-10-26T09:59:43Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Claire Ren","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/claire-ren.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "A batch showing both short shots at the latch and sink marks near the boss often has a mold filling and packing problem, not only a production deviation. In the export glossary, terms such as gate type, gate size, runner, cold slug, weld line, flow mark, and mold flow analysis describe the conditions that must be checked before accepting rework. The supplier should explain how the latch and boss area are filled and packed. If the gate is too small or located far from the boss, the gate may freeze early, preventing adequate packing pressure from reaching the thick section. That can cause sink marks at the boss and short shots at the thinner latch if the flow path is unbalanced. The supplier should provide a mold flow image showing fill time, pressure drop, and sink mark index for the current tool. Compare it with the mold trial report and gate dimensions. For the rejected batch, the immediate task is not to modify the mold without data. Keep the retained samples and ask the supplier to identify cavity-specific patterns. If the defects repeat in all cavities, gate or runner changes may be needed. If only one cavity fails, venting or cooling may be the issue. Before the next lot, a joint tooling review should define the gate location, runner size, and acceptable sink mark criteria using the same export terms so that the claim file remains technically clear.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html#suggestedAnswer-6",
            "datePublished": "2026-10-26T09:58:43Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Nathan Guo","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/nathan-guo.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "A 15% defect rate in an incoming batch is not a borderline sampling issue; it is a systemic yield problem. The export glossary should define AQL, yield, FMEA, control plan, MSA, 8D, and CAPA so the supplier cannot use a favorable sampling level to hide batch instability. For a critical boss dimension, acceptance should not rely on the same AQL as a minor cosmetic characteristic. The first priority is containment. Ask the supplier to confirm the quantity in your warehouse, third-party warehouse, and in transit, then perform 100% sorting of the boss diameter and latch area. The sorting method and gauge should be agreed, not left to the supplier’s internal interpretation. For the dimensional issue, request a measurement system analysis because different CMMs and operators can create repeatability differences. If the two labs do not agree, the rejection file will be weakened. After containment, require an 8D report with root cause evidence, not a generic corrective action form. The supplier should update the process FMEA and control plan, add the boss diameter and short shot appearance to the in-process inspection, and demonstrate capability on new samples. Only after the corrected process is stable should the export release be approved. The goal is not only to resolve this lot but to ensure the next production run uses the same quality terms and acceptance rules.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/export-glossary-guide-injection-molded-parts-quality-control.html#suggestedAnswer-7",
            "datePublished": "2026-10-26T09:56:33Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Henry Cao","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/henry-cao.html"}          }
                  ]
              }
    },
    {
      "@context": "https://schema.org",
      "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
      "itemListElement": [
          {"@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "Home", "item": "https://www.hyneu.com/"},{"@type": "ListItem", "position": 2, "name": "Q&A", "item": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/"},{"@type": "ListItem", "position": 3, "name": "Injection Molding Q&A", "item": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/injection-molding/"}          ,{"@type": "ListItem", "position": 4, "name": "What Does an Export Glossary Guide Cover for Injection Molded Parts Quality Control?"}
      ]
    }
]
```