Identify the location before deciding the next step
Record where the opening appears, the machined depth and the feature affected. A small exposed pore on a cosmetic surface raises a different question from a defect crossing a sealing land. Keep the part identification with the photographs so the observation can be traced back to a batch.
Avoid judging the entire component from one photograph. The drawing requirements, surrounding wall and intended function determine what information is needed next.
Separate appearance, internal condition and leakage
Visual inspection can describe the exposed surface. Internal examination can provide information below that surface. A leak test asks whether a flow path exists under its specified test conditions. These checks are related, but one result does not automatically replace another.
Where a machined face seals against a gasket or carries pressure, discuss the functional requirement explicitly. A general instruction such as “no porosity” is difficult to evaluate consistently without a location, examination method and agreed acceptance criteria.
Keep the response tied to the cause
Preserve affected samples and the machining information. Review whether the issue follows a particular feature, cavity, batch or operation. Changes to the casting process and changes to the machining allowance address different parts of the problem.
Do not treat impregnation or a surface repair as an automatic substitute for a sound part. Any proposed recovery method needs the buyer’s agreement and must be suitable for the function, subsequent operations and verification requirements.
For your inquiry
For a problem review, send an overall part photo, a close view of the area and its position on the drawing. Include whether the issue is visual, dimensional or linked to a failed functional check.
Related information
Have a part to discuss?
Send a drawing, a photo or a short description. Tell us what is decided and what you still need help with.
Discuss your part ↗