A touch screen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-section detection result backflow

Abstract

The application discloses a touch screen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-section detection result backflow, relates to the touch screen production detection and defect tracing technical field, and comprises the following steps: obtaining multi-section detection results of the same detection associated object and forming a to-be-associated detection result group; forming an inter-section state basis record, an inter-section object continuous state, a defect object candidate section and a candidate relationship according to the detection results of adjacent detection sections; when the clear defect record is formed in the latter section detection result and can be corresponded to the candidate relationship, taking the latter section detection result as a backflow detection result; forming a defect object tracing basis according to the backflow detection result, the former section detection result and the inter-section state basis record, and outputting a defect root cause tracing result comprising a candidate root cause detection section or a detection section range, a tracing state and corresponding detection basis. The application solves the problems that the candidate root cause detection section determination basis is unclear and the tracing result reliability is insufficient when the multi-section detection results are missing, conflicting or delayed.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of touch screen production inspection and defect tracing, specifically a method for tracing the root cause of touch screen defects based on the feedback of multi-segment inspection results. Background Technology

[0002] Touchscreen products typically undergo multiple inspection stages during production and testing, including post-lamination inspection, appearance inspection, electrical performance testing, touch function testing, re-inspection, and pre-shipment inspection. Each inspection stage generates its own results, including stage identification, inspection sequence, defect record, defect location, defect type, defect level, and inspection conclusion. Because the objectives, equipment, conditions, and defect judgment criteria differ across inspection stages, the same defect may manifest differently in different stages. For example, a previous stage might only generate a weak anomaly or suspected defect record, while a later stage might generate a clear defect record. There are also instances where intermediate stages fail to detect the defect, inspection records are missing, inspection conclusions contradict each other, or results from later stages arrive late. Therefore, in the process of tracing touchscreen defects, determining whether multiple inspection results correspond to the same defect is crucial to accurately identifying the inspection stage from which the defect originates or the scope of that stage.

[0003] Existing methods typically link the results of subsequent or final inspections directly to the information from preceding inspections, or perform static matching based on information such as defect location, defect type, and inspection conclusions to infer which inspection segment or process the defect may originate from. However, such methods are prone to directly overriding the basis of preceding inspections with clear defect results from subsequent inspections, making it difficult to distinguish whether the relationship between preceding and subsequent inspection results is continuous, suspected continuous, conflicting, or should be separated. When there are missing defect records, conflicting inspection conclusions, or delayed arrival of subsequent inspection results, it is also difficult to perform hierarchical processing of candidate traceability relationships, easily leading to the direct determination or exclusion of relationships with insufficient evidence. This results in unstable traceability relationships of defect objects across inspection segments, unclear basis for determining candidate root cause inspection segments or inspection segment ranges, and consequently affects the reliability and interpretability of touch screen defect root cause tracing results. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of this invention is to provide a root cause tracing method for touchscreen defects based on multi-segment test result feedback. This method addresses the problems in existing touchscreen defect tracing processes, where there are missing defect records, conflicting test conclusions, changes in defect behavior, or delayed arrival of later test results among multiple test results. These issues can lead to later, clear test results directly overriding earlier test results, making it difficult to reliably determine the continuous relationship of the same defect object across different test segments. Consequently, the basis for determining candidate root cause test segments or the range of test segments is unclear, and the reliability and interpretability of the tracing results are insufficient.

[0005] A method for tracing the root causes of touchscreen defects based on multi-segment detection result feedback, characterized in that it includes: Step 1: Obtain multiple test results for the same related test object, and form a group of test results to be associated based on the test segment identifier, test order, and defect record correspondence. Step 2: Perform object continuity judgment on the detection results of adjacent detection segments in the group of detection results to be associated, and form an inter-segment state basis record including the existence status of defect record, the change status of defect performance, and the difference status of detection conclusion. Based on the inter-segment state basis record, form an inter-segment object continuity status including continuous status, suspected continuous status, conflict status, and separation status, and then form defect object candidate segments and candidate relationships. Step 3: When the subsequent detection results form a clear defect record and can be mapped to the candidate relationship, the subsequent detection results are used as the reflow detection results and associated with the candidate relationship; Step 4: Based on the backflow detection results, the front-end detection results associated with the candidate relationship, and the inter-segment status record, without replacing the front-end detection results with the backflow detection results, determine the way in which the candidate relationship participates in deterministic root cause tracing, and change the hierarchical affiliation of the candidate relationship in the defect object tracing basis according to the method, forming a defect object tracing basis that includes deterministic tracing candidate relationships, restricted tracing candidate relationships, and exclusion relationships; Step 5: Based on the detection segment information, detection result basis, and the way the candidate relationship participates in the deterministic root cause tracing in the defect object tracing basis, a defect root cause tracing result is formed, which includes the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range, tracing status, and corresponding detection basis.

[0006] A further technical improvement of the present invention is that: the same detection associated object is one or more of the same touch screen product object, the same defect record associated object, and the same detection flow object; the multi-segment detection results include detection segment identifier, detection time, detection order, product object identifier, defect record identifier, defect performance information, and detection conclusion, wherein the defect performance information includes at least one of defect location, defect type, defect level, and defect area.

[0007] A further technical improvement of the present invention is that: forming the continuous state of the inter-segment objects includes: when both adjacent detection segments have defect records, and the changes in defect manifestations between the defect records do not disrupt the object identity and the detection conclusions do not have a negative relationship, a continuous state is formed; when one detection segment has a clear defect record, another detection segment has a suspected defect record, a weakly abnormal record, or an unconfirmed record, or another detection segment is in a state of missing defect records but a candidate correspondence can still be established based on at least one of the detection segment order, product object identification, defect manifestation information, and detection conclusions, and neither a conflict state nor a separation state is formed, a suspected continuous state is formed; when the detection conclusions of adjacent detection segments negate each other or the defect manifestations cannot be interpreted and transformed, but it cannot be determined that the adjacent detection results point to different defect objects, a conflict state is formed; when the detection results of adjacent detection segments clearly point to different defect objects, or when it is determined that the correspondence of defect records cannot be established when the detection result information is complete, a separation state is formed.

[0008] A further technical improvement of the present invention is that: forming the defect object candidate segment and candidate relationship includes: keeping the detection results corresponding to the continuous state and the suspected continuous state in the same defect object candidate segment, and taking the conflict state and the separation state as the candidate segment boundary; wherein, for the detection results corresponding to the conflict state but whose object continuity cannot be ruled out, a restricted boundary is formed, and a restricted candidate relationship is established between the detection results on both sides of the restricted boundary.

[0009] A further technical improvement of the present invention is that: using the subsequent detection result as the reflow detection result includes: determining whether the explicit defect record in the subsequent detection result satisfies the corresponding conditions with the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, detection segment order, and defect record correspondence; wherein, the defect manifestation satisfying the corresponding conditions includes: the subsequent detection result and the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship satisfying the positional correspondence rule in terms of defect location, and satisfying the preset correspondence rule in at least one of defect type and defect level; the positional correspondence rule includes that the defect location is located in the same preset detection area, adjacent preset detection areas, or the coordinate deviation does not exceed The preset position deviation range and the preset corresponding rules for the defect types include the same defect type or belonging to a preset set of convertible defect types. The preset corresponding rules for the defect levels include the same defect level or the level change not exceeding a preset level change range. When the defect location cannot be completely obtained, the corresponding conditions for the defect performance are jointly determined based on the defect record correspondence, the detection segment order, the preset corresponding rules for the defect types, and the preset corresponding rules for the defect levels. If the corresponding conditions are met, the subsequent detection result is used as the reflow detection result. If the corresponding conditions are not met, the subsequent detection result is not used as the reflow detection result.

[0010] A further technical improvement of the present invention is that: the method of determining whether the candidate relationship participates in deterministic root cause tracing includes: when the backflow detection result supports the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, the candidate relationship can participate in deterministic root cause tracing; when the backflow detection result does not negate but is insufficient to confirm the continuity of the object, the candidate relationship is restricted from participating in root cause tracing; when the backflow detection result negates the continuity of the object, the candidate relationship is not allowed to participate in deterministic root cause tracing.

[0011] A further technical improvement of the present invention is that: the formation of the defect object tracing basis includes: for candidate relationships formed by continuous states or suspected continuous states, when the explicit defect record in the reflow detection result and the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship all meet the corresponding conditions in terms of defect manifestation, detection segment order, and defect record correspondence, and there is no detection conclusion in the inter-segment state basis record that negates the continuity of the object, and when the reflow detection result, the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship, and the inter-segment state basis record determine that there is no unresolved unconfirmed basis, the candidate relationship is determined as a deterministic tracing candidate relationship; when the reflow detection result does not negate the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, but the reflow detection result does not negate the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, but the reflow detection result does not negate the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, but the reflow detection result does not negate the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, the candidate relationship is determined as a deterministic tracing candidate relationship. When the test results, the preceding test results associated with the candidate relationship, and the inter-segment status records determine that there are still unresolved unconfirmed bases, the candidate relationship is determined as a restricted traceability candidate relationship; when the backflow test results negate the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, or when the inter-segment status records determine that the test results on both sides of the candidate relationship point to different defect objects, the candidate relationship is determined as an exclusion relationship; wherein, the deterministic traceability candidate relationship corresponds to a deterministic traceability state in the defect root cause traceability results, the restricted traceability candidate relationship corresponds to a restricted traceability state in the defect root cause traceability results, and the exclusion relationship is excluded from the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range corresponding to the deterministic traceability state.

[0012] A further technical improvement of the present invention is as follows: before using the subsequent detection result as the reflow detection result, the method further includes: forming an object performance consistency state based on changes in defect location, defect type, and defect level; forming a source continuity state based on the sequential relationship of detection segments, the correspondence relationship of detection segments, and the source of detection conclusions; and cross-validating the object performance consistency state and the source continuity state to form an association qualification state for determining whether the subsequent detection result can correspond to the candidate relationship; wherein, the object performance consistency state is formed when the defect location of the subsequent detection result and the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship satisfies the position correspondence rule, and at least one of the defect type and defect level satisfies the corresponding preset correspondence rule; the position correspondence rule includes the defect location being located in the same preset detection area, adjacent preset detection areas, or with coordinate deviation. If the defect type does not exceed the preset position deviation range, the preset corresponding rule for the defect type includes the same defect type or belonging to a preset convertible defect type set. The preset corresponding rule for the defect level includes the same defect level or the level change does not exceed the preset level change range. When the defect location cannot be completely obtained, the object performance consistency state is formed by combining the defect record correspondence, detection segment order, preset corresponding rule for the defect type, and preset corresponding rule for the defect level. The source continuity state is formed when the subsequent detection result is located after the detection segment associated with the candidate relationship, the subsequent detection result belongs to the same detection associated object, and the source of the detection conclusion of the subsequent detection result can establish a source correspondence relationship with the detection result associated with the candidate relationship through the detection task identifier, detection equipment record identifier, re-inspection reference relationship, or defect record correspondence.

[0013] A further technical improvement of the present invention is as follows: when the multiple detection results have missing data, conflicting detection conclusions, delayed arrival of subsequent detection results, or cannot correspond to the candidate relationship, a deterministic traceability state is not directly formed; wherein, when missing data makes it impossible to determine the correspondence, a pending confirmation state is formed; when the detection result information is complete but cannot correspond to the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, detection segment order, and defect record correspondence, an association qualification invalid state is formed, and the detection result is not used as a return detection result; when the detection conclusions conflict but the continuity of the object cannot be ruled out, a restricted traceability state is formed; when the detection conclusions conflict and the continuity of the object has been denied, an exclusion relationship is formed; when the subsequent detection result arrives late, the steps of forming a return detection result, determining the candidate relationship to participate in deterministic root cause traceability, and forming a defect root cause traceability result are re-executed.

[0014] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects: This invention forms a group of test results to be associated by combining multiple test results of the same related object. Based on the existence status of defects, changes in defect behavior, and differences in test conclusions of adjacent test segments, it creates an inter-segment status record, resulting in continuous, suspected continuous, conflicting, and separated states. This allows test results from different test segments to be candidate-associated according to the continuity of the defect object. Therefore, it avoids directly determining the defect source based solely on later or final test results, improving the stability and interpretability of the association judgment between multiple test results.

[0015] This invention, when the subsequent detection results form a clear defect record and can be mapped to a candidate relationship, uses it as a return detection result. Without replacing the previous detection results, it determines the hierarchical affiliation of the candidate relationship in the defect object tracing basis, thereby forming deterministic tracing candidate relationships, restricted tracing candidate relationships, and exclusion relationships. Therefore, even when detection results are missing, conflicting, or delayed, it can still distinguish between deterministic tracing, restricted tracing, and exclusion scenarios, outputting candidate root cause detection segments or detection segment ranges supported by corresponding detection evidence, thus improving the reliability of touchscreen defect root cause tracing results. Attached Figure Description

[0016] To facilitate understanding by those skilled in the art, the present invention will be further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0017] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the method of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0018] To further illustrate the technical means and effects of the present invention in achieving the intended purpose, the following detailed description of the specific implementation methods, structures, features and effects of the present invention, in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and preferred embodiments, is provided.

[0019] The following describes a method for tracing the root cause of touchscreen defects based on the feedback of multi-segment detection results, using specific embodiments. This embodiment processes multiple detection results for the same associated object, forming a group of detection results to be associated, a record of inter-segment state basis, a continuous state of inter-segment objects, candidate segments of defect objects, candidate relationships, feedback detection results, the basis for defect object tracing, and the result of defect root cause tracing, thereby achieving the tracing of the root cause of touchscreen defects. The following embodiments are only for illustrating the implementation of the present invention and should not be construed as limiting the names of detection segments, the number of detection segments, the defect type, or the source of the detection system.

[0020] It should be noted that the root cause tracing referred to in this invention is to trace the detection segment or detection segment range that can form a verifiable association with the earliest defect manifestation. Its output results are the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range, tracing status and corresponding detection basis, and are not directly limited to equipment failure, material, personnel or supplier responsibility.

[0021] Step 1: Obtain multiple test results for the same related test object, and form a group of test results to be associated based on the test segment identifier, test order, and correspondence of defect records.

[0022] In this embodiment, the "same detection association object" is used to limit the scope of collection of multiple detection results, avoiding the mixing of detection results from different touchscreen products, different defect records, or different detection processes into the same processing object. The "same detection association object" can be one or more of the following: the same touchscreen product object, the same defect record association object, and the same detection process object. Specifically, the same touchscreen product object can be identified by a product object identifier; the same defect record association object can be identified by a defect record identifier, an initial defect record identifier, or a re-inspection record association identifier; and the same detection process object can be identified by the detection batch, process number, process flow record, or detection task number.

[0023] When acquiring multiple test results, the test result records generated by the touchscreen product in different test segments can be read. The test segment can be a test stage, test node, or test link that generates test conclusions during the production, testing, or re-inspection process of the touchscreen product. For example, the test segment may include a post-lamination test segment, an appearance test segment, an electrical performance test segment, a touch function test segment, a re-inspection test segment, or a pre-shipment test segment. It should be noted that the name and number of the test segments do not constitute a limitation on this embodiment. As long as different test results can be distinguished by the test segment identifier and the test order, they can be used as multiple test results in this embodiment for processing.

[0024] Each test result may include at least the test segment identifier, test time, test sequence, product object identifier, defect record identifier, defect manifestation information, and test conclusion. Specifically, the test segment identifier indicates which test segment the test result originates from; the test time indicates when the test result was generated; the test sequence indicates the sequential relationship between multiple test segments; the product object identifier indicates the touchscreen product object corresponding to the test result; the defect record identifier indicates the defect record generated or referenced in the test result; the defect manifestation information indicates the manifestation of the defect or anomaly in the test result; and the test conclusion indicates the judgment result of the test segment on the corresponding product object or defect record.

[0025] The defect information may include at least one of the following: defect location, defect type, defect level, and defect area. Defect location may represent the coordinates, area number, or relative position of the defect on the touchscreen product; defect type may represent scratches, bubbles, black spots, bright spots, broken lines, touch abnormalities, edge abnormalities, or other detection abnormality types; defect level may represent the severity of the defect, re-inspection priority, or quality judgment level; defect area may represent the location of the defect in the display area, edge area, bonding area, cover plate area, touch sensing area, or other preset detection area. This defect information is used to form an inter-segment status record in subsequent steps, but in step one, no judgment is made regarding whether the defects are continuous, conflicting, or belong to the same defect object.

[0026] When forming a group of test results to be associated, first determine the set of candidate test results belonging to the same associated test object based on the product object identifier, defect record identifier, or test flow object identifier. If different test results have the same product object identifier, or have defect record identifiers that can be associated with each other, or belong to the same test flow object, then they are included in the same set of candidate test results; if the test results do not belong to the same associated test object, then they are not included in the group of test results to be associated.

[0027] After determining the candidate test result set, the test segment corresponding to each test result is identified according to the test segment identifier, and the test results are arranged according to the test order. The test order can be determined by a preset sequence relationship of the test segments, or by the test time, process flow record, or test task record. When the test time is inconsistent with the preset sequence relationship of the test segments, the preset sequence relationship of the test segments can be used as the primary sorting basis, and the test time can be used as an auxiliary verification basis; when the sequence of test segments is missing but the sequence relationship can be determined by the test time and process flow record, the test order can be determined based on the test time and process flow record.

[0028] When forming a group of test results to be associated based on the correspondence of defect records, test results with the same defect record identifier within the same associated test object can be grouped into the same group. Test results with slightly different defect record identifiers but associated with re-inspection records, manual review records, test tasks, or initial defect records can also be grouped into the same group based on this correspondence. For test results with missing defect record identifiers but still belonging to the same associated test object through product object identifiers, test segment identifiers, test sequence, and test transfer objects, they can be temporarily retained in the corresponding group of test results to be associated, and their defect record correspondence can be marked as pending confirmation within that group, so that subsequent steps can further process them based on the inter-segment status and records.

[0029] The group of detection results to be associated serves as the input basis for judging the continuity of objects in subsequent adjacent detection segments.

[0030] Step 2: Perform object continuity judgment on the detection results of adjacent detection segments in the group of detection results to be associated, and form an inter-segment state basis record including the existence status of defect record, the change status of defect performance, and the difference status of detection conclusion. Based on the inter-segment state basis record, form an inter-segment object continuity status including continuous status, suspected continuous status, conflict status, and separation status, and then form defect object candidate segments and candidate relationships.

[0031] In this embodiment, step two is performed based on the group of detection results to be associated formed in step one. This group already contains the detection results of multiple detection segments belonging to the same detection association object, and each detection result has a detection segment identifier, detection order, and a corresponding relationship with the defect record. Therefore, in step two, adjacent detection segments are first determined according to the detection order, and the detection results of adjacent detection segments are used as a group of inter-segment judgment objects. For two adjacent detection segments in the detection order, the defect record, defect manifestation information, and detection conclusion in their detection results are read respectively, and an inter-segment status basis record is formed based on the correspondence between the two detection segments.

[0032] When multiple defect records exist in adjacent detection segments, candidate detection result pairs can be formed in the order of defect location deviation, defect area overlap, defect type correspondence, and defect level change. If a unique correspondence can be determined, an inter-segment status record is formed based on the candidate detection result pair. If a unique correspondence cannot be determined but the matching information is complete, the parallel candidate detection result pairs are marked as restricted matching states, and separate inter-segment status records are formed. When candidate relationships are subsequently formed, the corresponding relationships are determined as restricted candidate relationships. If a correspondence cannot be determined due to missing data, a pending confirmation state is formed. The matching priority and comparison method for each matching information can be the same as the matching priority and comparison method used when multiple candidate relationships correspond to subsequent segment detection results. After determining a unique candidate detection result pair, the two defect records in that pair can be marked as occupied in this inter-segment matching, preventing the same defect record from forming a unique correspondence with other defect records during the matching process of the same adjacent detection segment.

[0033] The inter-segment status record is used to indicate whether adjacent detection segments have the basis to continue being considered as candidate associations for the same defect object. This inter-segment status record includes at least the defect record existence status, defect behavior change status, and detection conclusion difference status. Specifically, the defect record existence status indicates whether there are explicit defect records, suspected defect records, weakly abnormal records, unconfirmed records, or missing defect records in adjacent detection segments; the defect behavior change status indicates whether there is a correspondence between the defect location, defect type, defect level, or defect area in adjacent detection segments that can be interpreted as a change in the same defect object; and the detection conclusion difference status indicates whether the detection conclusions of adjacent detection segments are consistent, enhanced, weakened, negated, conflicting, or cannot be confirmed.

[0034] When establishing a defect record existence status, first determine if defect records exist in both adjacent inspection segments. If defect records exist in both adjacent inspection segments, then further determine whether the two defect records can be established based on the defect record correspondence, product object identifier, or inspection segment order from step one. If one inspection segment has a clear defect record, and another inspection segment has a suspected defect record, a weak anomaly record, or an unconfirmed record, or if another inspection segment is in a defect record missing state, then this situation is used as a candidate basis for subsequently establishing a suspected continuous state. If, given complete inspection result information, it is determined that a defect record correspondence cannot be established between adjacent inspection segments, then this situation is used as one of the criteria for establishing a separated state; if, due to data missingness, the defect record correspondence cannot be temporarily determined, then this situation is used as one of the criteria for establishing a pending confirmation state.

[0035] When data loss prevents adjacent detection segments from fully recording the existence of defects, changes in defect behavior, or discrepancies in detection conclusions, the corresponding detection results can be retained and designated as pending confirmation. This pending confirmation status does not serve as the basis for establishing a definitive traceability status, but it can be used as the foundation for subsequent reassessment or processing upon the arrival of supplementary detection results.

[0036] When a change in defect behavior is observed, it can be determined based on the defect behavior information of adjacent detection segments. If there is an interpretable correspondence between the defect location, defect type, defect level, or defect area in adjacent detection segments, the change in defect behavior is considered not to have disrupted the object's identity. "Not disrupting object identity" means that although the defect behavior in adjacent detection segments may vary in location, type, level, or area, this change can still be explained by combining the detection segment order and the correspondence of defect records as differences in the behavior of the same defective object in different detection segments. If the defect behavior in adjacent detection segments clearly points to different defective objects, or if an interpretable conversion relationship cannot be established between the defect behaviors, this situation is used as the basis for determining a conflict state or a separation state.

[0037] In one implementation, when determining whether a change in defect behavior does not disrupt the object's identity, one or more of the following rules can be used: position correspondence rules, type correspondence rules, and grade correspondence rules. When it is necessary to improve the degree of object continuity confirmation, a combination of these rules can also be used. The position correspondence rules may include: defects in adjacent detection segments are located in the same preset detection area, adjacent preset detection areas, or their coordinate deviation does not exceed a preset position deviation range. The type correspondence rules may include: defects in adjacent detection segments have the same type, or belong to a preset set of convertible defect types. The grade correspondence rules may include: defects in adjacent detection segments have the same grade, or the grade change does not exceed a preset grade change range. If the above rules, combined with the detection segment sequence and defect record correspondence, support the same defect object, then the change in defect behavior can be considered not to have disrupted the object's identity. When the defect location cannot be fully obtained, the defect record correspondence, type correspondence rules, and grade correspondence rules can be combined to jointly determine whether the object's identity has not been disrupted.

[0038] When establishing a state of discrepancy in detection conclusions, the conclusions of adjacent detection segments can be compared. If the conclusions of adjacent detection segments do not have a negative relationship—for example, both pointing to the presence of a defect, a suspected defect, a weak anomaly, or an unconfirmed anomaly—then the state of discrepancy in detection conclusions can serve as supporting evidence for a continuous or suspected continuous state. If the conclusion of one detection segment points to the presence of a defect, while the conclusion of another detection segment explicitly denies the defect or the correspondence between the detected objects, then the state of discrepancy in detection conclusions can serve as evidence for a conflicting state. If the detection conclusions and defect manifestation information jointly indicate that the results of adjacent detection segments point to different defect objects, then this can serve as evidence for a separated state.

[0039] After obtaining the inter-segment state basis record, a continuous state of inter-segment objects is formed based on this record. Specifically, a continuous state is formed when defect records exist in both adjacent detection segments, and the changes in defect behavior between the defect records do not disrupt the object's identity, and the detection conclusions do not have a negative relationship. A continuous state indicates that the detection results in adjacent detection segments can maintain a continuous correlation within the same defect object candidate segment.

[0040] A suspected continuous state is formed when one inspection segment has a clear defect record, another inspection segment has a suspected defect record, a weak anomaly record, or an unconfirmed record, or when another inspection segment is in a state of missing defect records but a candidate corresponding basis can still be established based on at least one of the following: inspection segment order, product object identification, defect manifestation information, and inspection conclusion, and neither a conflicting nor a separated state is formed. A suspected continuous state indicates that the inspection results in the adjacent inspection segments are not yet sufficient to directly establish a definite object continuity relationship, but still have a candidate corresponding basis. Therefore, they can be retained in the same candidate segment when subsequently forming candidate defect object segments. If, due to missing necessary data, it cannot be determined whether a candidate corresponding basis can be established, a suspected continuous state is not directly formed, but rather a pending confirmation state is formed.

[0041] A conflict arises when the detection conclusions of adjacent detection segments contradict each other, or when the defect manifestation cannot be interpreted in a different way, but it cannot be determined whether the adjacent detection results point to different defect objects. A conflict indicates that there are inconsistent or contradictory detection bases between adjacent detection segments, which are not suitable for direct treatment as a definite continuous relationship. However, when it cannot be determined whether they point to different defect objects, they can be used as the basis for forming a restricted boundary.

[0042] A separation state is formed when the detection results of adjacent detection segments clearly point to different defect objects, or when it is determined that the correspondence between defect records cannot be established even when the detection result information is complete. A separation state indicates that the detection results of adjacent detection segments should not continue to be considered as candidate defect objects for association, but can serve as the boundary basis for candidate defect object segments.

[0043] After establishing the continuous state of objects between segments, candidate segments and candidate relationships for defective objects are formed based on the continuous state, suspected continuous state, conflict state, and separation state. Specifically, the detection results in the group of detection results to be associated can be read sequentially along the detection order, and it is determined whether to keep the detection results of adjacent detection segments in the same candidate segment for defective objects based on the continuous state of objects between adjacent detection segments. For detection results corresponding to continuous state and suspected continuous state, they are kept in the same candidate segment for defective objects, and a candidate relationship between the detection results of adjacent detection segments is established within this candidate segment for defective objects. The candidate relationship is used to indicate that there is a candidate correspondence between the detection results of different detection segments in the same candidate segment for defective objects.

[0044] For detection results corresponding to conflicting and separated states, these are used as candidate segment boundaries. Specifically, detection results corresponding to separated states can serve as the basis for dividing different defect object candidate segments, ensuring that detection results on both sides of the separated state do not remain in the same defect object candidate segment. For detection results corresponding to conflicting states where object continuity cannot be ruled out, restricted boundaries can be formed, and restricted candidate relationships can be established between the detection results on both sides of the restricted boundary. These restricted candidate relationships indicate that there is a conflicting or uncertain basis for the candidate relationship; they differ from candidate relationships formed in continuous states, but still remain within the restricted association range of defect object candidate segments.

[0045] In this embodiment, the inter-segment state basis record is not used to calculate the statistical correlation between variables of different processes, nor is it used to directly determine the causal direction between process variables. Instead, it is used to characterize whether the test results of adjacent test segments have inter-segment basis for being candidates for the same defect object. The objects forming the continuous state of inter-segment objects are the defect records and test results in adjacent test segments, rather than the quality statistical variables of the entire batch of products. Through this process, candidate segments and candidate relationships of defect objects that can support subsequent reflow processing can be formed first.

[0046] The inter-segment status records, inter-segment object continuity status, defect object candidate segments and candidate relationships formed in step two serve as the object basis for subsequent processing.

[0047] Step 3: When the post-processing detection results form a clear defect record and can be mapped to the candidate relationship, the post-processing detection results are used as reflow detection results and associated with the candidate relationship.

[0048] In this embodiment, step three is performed based on the defect object candidate segments and candidate relationships formed in step two. The defect object candidate segments already include multiple detection results organized in the detection order, and candidate relationships or restricted candidate relationships have been formed between the detection results of adjacent detection segments. Step three does not re-establish defect object candidate segments, nor does it directly form defect root cause tracing results. Instead, it determines whether the subsequent detection results can be used as reflow detection results for subsequent processing.

[0049] The subsequent detection result refers to the detection result that follows the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship in the detection sequence. The preceding detection result refers to the detection result that is in an earlier detection segment within the candidate relationship. The subsequent detection result can originate from a subsequent detection segment within the same detection association object that is located after the candidate relationship in the detection sequence and can be mapped to the candidate relationship. Only when the subsequent detection result forms a clear defect record, and this clear defect record can be mapped to the candidate relationship, is the subsequent detection result used as a reflow detection result.

[0050] When determining whether the subsequent inspection results form a clear defect record, the inspection conclusions and defect record content in the subsequent inspection results can be read. If the subsequent inspection results contain a clear defect record that indicates a defect in the touchscreen product object, such as a clear defect record identifier, defect manifestation information, and inspection conclusion, then the subsequent inspection results are considered to form a clear defect record. If the subsequent inspection results are only unconfirmed records, weak anomaly records, defect record missing states, or inspection results that cannot form a clear defect record, then the subsequent inspection results will not be used as reflow inspection results in this step.

[0051] When determining whether the subsequent detection results can correspond to the candidate relationship, the judgment can be made based on whether the explicit defect records in the subsequent detection results meet the corresponding conditions with the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, detection segment order, and defect record correspondence. Specifically, the defect manifestation correspondence condition is used to determine whether the defect manifestation information in the subsequent detection results can form an interpretable correspondence with the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationship; the detection segment order correspondence condition is used to determine whether the subsequent detection results are located after the detection segments associated with the candidate relationship, and whether their detection order can be used as subsequent detection results for reflow processing; the defect record correspondence condition is used to determine whether the explicit defect records in the subsequent detection results have the same identifier, re-inspection association, manual review association, detection task association, or other corresponding basis that can indicate they belong to the same detection association object as the defect records associated with the candidate relationship.

[0052] When determining whether the subsequent detection result and the candidate relationship meet the corresponding conditions in terms of defect performance, a preset correspondence rule can be used. The corresponding conditions for defect performance include: the subsequent detection result and the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship satisfying the positional correspondence rule at the defect location, and satisfying the preset correspondence rule at least in terms of defect type and defect level. The positional correspondence rule is used to determine whether the defect locations of the subsequent detection result and the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship are located in the same preset detection area, adjacent preset detection areas, or whether their coordinate deviation does not exceed a preset positional deviation range; the preset correspondence rule for defect type is used to determine whether their defect types are the same or belong to a preset convertible defect type set; the preset correspondence rule for defect level is used to determine whether their defect levels are the same or whether the level change does not exceed a preset level change range. When the defect location cannot be completely obtained, the corresponding conditions for defect performance can be jointly determined based on the defect record correspondence, detection segment order, the preset correspondence rule for defect type, and the preset correspondence rule for defect level.

[0053] In one implementation, the correspondence between the subsequent detection results and the candidate relationships in terms of defect manifestation can be determined first. If the defect location in the subsequent detection results satisfies the location correspondence rule, and at least one of the defect type or defect level satisfies the corresponding preset correspondence rule, then the defect manifestation is considered to meet the correspondence condition. When the defect location cannot be completely obtained, the defect record correspondence, detection segment order, preset correspondence rule for defect type, and preset correspondence rule for defect level can be combined for joint judgment. If the defect manifestation in the subsequent detection results clearly points to different defect objects, or cannot form an interpretable correspondence with the preceding detection results in the candidate relationships, then the defect manifestation is considered not to meet the correspondence condition.

[0054] In another implementation, the order of the detection segments can be used to determine whether a subsequent detection result has a basis for reflow. If the detection segment identifier of a subsequent detection result is located after the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship in the detection order, and the subsequent detection result belongs to the subsequent detection segment of the same detection association object, then the detection segment order is considered to meet the corresponding condition. If the detection result cannot be used as a subsequent detection result in the detection order, or its detection segment does not belong to the subsequent detection range of the group of detection results to be associated or the corresponding defect object candidate segment, then it is not used as a reflow detection result.

[0055] In another implementation, the correspondence between defect records can be used to determine whether the subsequent inspection results can be mapped to candidate relationships. If the explicit defect record in the subsequent inspection results has the same defect record identifier as the defect record associated with the candidate relationship, or has a correspondence such as re-inspection record association, manual review association, inspection task association, or initial defect record association, then the defect record correspondence is considered to meet the correspondence condition. If there is no identifiable correspondence between the explicit defect record in the subsequent inspection results and the defect record associated with the candidate relationship, then the subsequent inspection results are not considered as reflow inspection results.

[0056] When multiple candidate relationships can be identified from the same post-test result, those that do not meet the detection segment order or defect record correspondence can be eliminated first. For the remaining candidate relationships, the matching priority is determined according to the defect position deviation from small to large. When the defect position deviations are the same or indistinguishable, the matching priority is determined according to the degree of overlap of defect areas from high to low. When the degree of overlap of defect areas is still indistinguishable, the matching priority is first determined according to the degree of correspondence of defect types. When the degree of correspondence of defect types is still the same, the matching priority is then determined according to the magnitude of change in defect level from small to large. If a unique candidate relationship cannot be determined according to the above order, and the matching information of each candidate relationship is complete, a unique and definitive correspondence is not formed, and all parallel candidate relationships are determined as restricted candidate relationships. If the matching priority cannot be determined due to missing data required for matching, the corresponding candidate relationship is determined to be in a pending confirmation state. Therefore, when there are multiple defect records of the same or similar defect types in the same touch screen product, the situation where a clearly identified defect record in the post-test is incorrectly returned to other candidate relationships can be reduced.

[0057] Among them, the defect location deviation can be the distance between the center points of two defects after the coordinates are unified; the degree of overlap of defect areas can be the ratio of the intersection area to the union area of ​​two defect areas; the degree of correspondence of defect types can be determined according to the priority of defects of the same type over those belonging to the preset set of convertible defect types; the change range of defect level can be the absolute value of the difference between the corresponding serial numbers of two defect levels.

[0058] In one implementation, a unified product coordinate system can be established using the reference edge, positioning markers, or preset detection area boundaries of the touchscreen product. Scaling factors, rotation angles, and translation amounts are determined based on the corresponding positioning points in each detection segment image, transforming the defect coordinates of each detection segment to the unified product coordinate system. After transformation, the defect position deviation can be determined based on the distance between the center points of two defects, and the degree of overlap of defect areas can be calculated based on the transformed defect areas.

[0059] When a test result cannot be mapped to a candidate relationship, the handling can be differentiated based on the reason for the mismatch. If the correspondence between the subsequent test result and the candidate relationship cannot be determined due to data loss, a pending confirmation status can be established, which is not used as the basis for forming a deterministic traceability status. If the information of the subsequent test result is complete but cannot be mapped to the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, test segment order, or defect record correspondence, an association qualification failure status is established, and the subsequent test result is not used as a reflow test result. The above handling does not directly negate other existing candidate relationships, nor does it directly form a deterministic traceability status.

[0060] Before using the subsequent detection results as reflow detection results, an association qualification state can be formed to determine whether the subsequent detection results can correspond to the candidate relationship. Specifically, an object performance consistency state can be formed based on changes in defect location, defect type, and defect level. The object performance consistency state indicates whether there is performance consistency or an interpretable correspondence between the defect performance in the subsequent detection results and the defect performance in the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationship. When forming an object performance consistency state, it is determined whether the defect location of the subsequent detection results and the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationship meets the location correspondence rule, and whether at least one of the defect type and defect level meets the corresponding preset correspondence rule; when the defect location cannot be completely obtained, an object performance consistency state can be formed jointly based on the defect record correspondence, detection segment order, preset correspondence rule for defect type, and preset correspondence rule for defect level. If the above conditions are met, a corresponding object performance consistency state can be formed; if the above conditions are not met, a corresponding object performance consistency state is not formed.

[0061] Simultaneously, a source continuity state can be formed based on the sequential relationship of detection segments, the corresponding relationship of detection segments, and the source of detection conclusions. This source continuity state indicates whether there is continuity in the detection source between the subsequent detection result and the preceding detection result associated with the candidate relationship. When forming a source continuity state, it can be determined whether the subsequent detection result is located after the detection segment associated with the candidate relationship, whether the subsequent detection result belongs to the same detection association object, and whether the source of the detection conclusion of the subsequent detection result can establish a source correspondence with the detection result associated with the candidate relationship through the detection task identifier, detection equipment record identifier, re-inspection reference relationship, or defect record correspondence. If all the above conditions are met, a source continuity state supporting the corresponding result is formed; if the sequential relationship of detection segments cannot be determined, the subsequent detection result does not belong to the same detection association object, or the source of the detection conclusion cannot establish a source correspondence with the detection result associated with the candidate relationship, a source continuity state supporting the corresponding result is not formed.

[0062] After establishing an object performance consistency state and a source continuity state, these two states are cross-validated to form an association qualification state. If both the object performance consistency state and the source continuity state support the correspondence between the subsequent detection results and the candidate relationship, an association qualification state indicating that the association qualification is established is formed. If either the object performance consistency state or the source continuity state cannot confirm but does not deny the correspondence, an association qualification state indicating that the association is pending confirmation is formed. If either the object performance consistency state or the source continuity state explicitly denies the correspondence between the subsequent detection results and the candidate relationship, an association qualification state indicating that the association qualification is not established is formed.

[0063] When a clear defect record is generated from the subsequent detection results, and it is determined that the corresponding conditions are met based on the defect manifestation, detection segment order, and defect record correspondence, the cross-validation results of the consistent object performance and continuous source status can be combined to confirm that the subsequent detection result can correspond to the candidate relationship, and the subsequent detection result is used as the reflow detection result. The reflow detection result retains at least the detection segment identifier, detection order, clear defect record, defect manifestation information, detection conclusion, and its corresponding candidate relationship identifier from the subsequent detection result. Subsequently, the reflow detection result is associated with the corresponding candidate relationship, so that the reflow detection result can serve as the input basis for subsequently determining how the candidate relationship participates in deterministic root cause tracing.

[0064] In this embodiment, the reflow detection result is applied to the already formed candidate relationships, rather than directly replacing the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationships, nor is it directly output as the final defect root cause tracing result. In other words, after the subsequent detection results are used as reflow detection results, their role is to provide a basis for subsequent judgment on whether candidate relationships can participate in deterministic root cause tracing, rather than directly overriding the preceding detection basis with the subsequent detection conclusions.

[0065] If the subsequent inspection results do not form a clear defect record, or although inspection results are formed, they cannot be mapped to the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, inspection segment order, and defect record correspondence, then the subsequent inspection results will not be used as reflow inspection results. This process does not directly negate the aforementioned candidate relationship, nor does it directly form a defect root cause tracing result; rather, it only indicates that the subsequent inspection results will not be used as reflow inspection results in this step for subsequent processing.

[0066] The backflow detection results serve as the input basis for subsequently determining how the candidate relationships participate in deterministic root cause tracing.

[0067] Step four: Based on the backflow detection results, the front-end detection results associated with the candidate relationships, and the inter-segment status records, without replacing the front-end detection results with the backflow detection results, determine the method by which the candidate relationships participate in deterministic root cause tracing, and change the hierarchical affiliation of the candidate relationships in the defect object tracing basis according to the method, forming a defect object tracing basis that includes deterministic tracing candidate relationships, restricted tracing candidate relationships, and exclusion relationships.

[0068] In this embodiment, step four is performed based on the reflow detection results already formed in step three and the association of the reflow detection results with the corresponding candidate relationships. The reflow detection results include at least the explicit defect records, detection segment identifiers, detection order, defect performance information, and detection conclusions from the subsequent detection results; the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationship are the detection results that are at the forefront of the detection order in that candidate relationship; the inter-segment status record is the record formed in step two based on the detection results of adjacent detection segments, which includes the defect record existence status, defect performance change status, and detection conclusion difference status. Step four does not regenerate the reflow detection results, nor does it directly output the defect root cause tracing results, but rather determines, based on the above information, how the candidate relationship can participate in subsequent deterministic root cause tracing.

[0069] In this embodiment, candidate relationships participate in deterministic root cause tracing in a dynamic manner based on the support, non-negation but insufficient confirmation, or determination of negation status of candidate relationships provided by the backflow detection results. This method does not change the front-end detection results or the back-end detection results themselves, but rather changes the hierarchical affiliation of candidate relationships in the defect object tracing framework, causing candidate relationships to enter into deterministic tracing candidate relationships, restricted tracing candidate relationships, or exclusion relationships, respectively.

[0070] When determining how candidate relationships participate in deterministic root cause tracing, the correspondence between the reflow detection results and the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationship can be read first. Then, the effect of the reflow detection results on the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship can be determined based on the inter-segment status records. Object continuity refers to whether the detection results of different detection segments associated with the candidate relationship can be treated as continuous or suspected continuous manifestations of the same defect object in different detection segments. This determination is not based solely on the detection conclusions of the subsequent detection results, nor does it directly overwrite the preceding detection results with the subsequent detection results. Instead, it combines the reflow detection results, the preceding detection results, and the inter-segment status records for judgment.

[0071] In one implementation, candidate relationship state transition rules can be formed based on the state changes of the candidate relationship before and after the arrival of the reflow test results. For candidate relationships formed by continuous or suspected continuous states, if the explicit defect record in the reflow test results and the previous test results all meet the corresponding conditions in terms of defect manifestation, test segment order, and defect record correspondence, and there is no test conclusion in the inter-segment state basis record that denies the continuity of the object, and it is determined, in combination with the reflow test results, the previous test results associated with the candidate relationship, and the inter-segment state basis record, that there is no unresolved unconfirmed basis, then the candidate relationship is determined as a deterministic traceability candidate relationship; if the reflow test results do not deny the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, but it is determined, in combination with the reflow test results, the previous test results associated with the candidate relationship, and the inter-segment state basis record, that there is still unresolved unconfirmed basis, then the candidate relationship is determined as a restricted traceability candidate relationship; if the reflow test results deny the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, or it can be determined, in combination with the inter-segment state basis record, that the test results on both sides of the candidate relationship point to different defect objects, then the candidate relationship is determined as an exclusion relationship. The aforementioned state transition rules only change the hierarchical affiliation of candidate relationships in the defect object tracing framework, and do not replace the front-end detection results associated with the candidate relationships.

[0072] When the backflow detection results support the continuity of the objects corresponding to the candidate relationship, the candidate relationship can participate in deterministic root cause analysis. Specifically, if a clear defect record in the backflow detection results can form an interpretable correspondence with the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, and this correspondence does not contradict the defect manifestation changes and detection conclusion differences in the inter-segment status records, then the backflow detection results can be considered to support the continuity of the objects corresponding to the candidate relationship. For example, if the preceding detection results are a suspected defect record or a weak anomaly record, and the subsequent backflow detection results are a clear defect record that corresponds to the suspected defect or weak anomaly, and the inter-segment status records do not show that the two belong to different defect objects, then the candidate relationship can participate in deterministic root cause analysis.

[0073] When the backflow test results do not negate but are insufficient to confirm the continuity of the object, the candidate relationship is restricted from participating in root cause analysis. Specifically, if there is a partial correspondence between the explicit defect record in the backflow test results and the preceding test results associated with the candidate relationship, but this correspondence is insufficient to confirm the continuity of the object, or if the inter-segment status records contain a missing defect record, an unconfirmed state, a suspected continuity state, a restricted boundary, or other uncertain basis, then the candidate relationship is not directly used as a candidate relationship for deterministic root cause analysis, but is restricted from participating in root cause analysis. Restricted participation does not mean that the candidate relationship is completely excluded, but rather that the candidate relationship can be retained in the defect object analysis basis, but it cannot directly participate in deterministic root cause analysis as a candidate relationship for deterministic analysis.

[0074] When the reflow test result negates the continuity of the object, the candidate relationship is excluded from deterministic root cause analysis. Specifically, if the explicit defect record in the reflow test result does not clearly correspond to the preceding test result associated with the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, or if the inter-segment status record shows a conflicting or separated state between adjacent test segments, and the reflow test result further supports this conflicting or separated judgment, then the reflow test result is considered to negate the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship. In this case, the candidate relationship is not used as the basis for subsequent deterministic root cause analysis.

[0075] When detection conclusions conflict, such as when the conclusions of adjacent detection segments contradict each other, or when the result of a later detection segment negates the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, the candidate relationship can be determined to be restricted from participating in root cause tracing or not participate in definitive root cause tracing based on whether the conflict negates the continuity of the object. Specifically, if the conflict cannot yet exclude the continuity of the object, the candidate relationship is restricted from participating in root cause tracing, and a restricted tracing candidate relationship is formed in the defect object tracing basis; if the conflict has already negated the continuity of the object, an exclusion relationship is formed in the defect object tracing basis.

[0076] After determining the method by which candidate relationships participate in deterministic root cause tracing, a basis for defect object tracing is formed based on this method. Specifically, candidate relationships that can participate in deterministic root cause tracing are identified as deterministic tracing candidate relationships. These deterministic tracing candidate relationships indicate that, supported by both backflow detection results and inter-segment status records, they can serve as a candidate basis for subsequently forming a deterministic tracing status. Deterministic tracing candidate relationships can retain corresponding candidate relationship identifiers, front-end detection result identifiers, backflow detection result identifiers, detection segment information, inter-segment status records, and detection criteria supporting the continuity of their objects.

[0077] For candidate relationships that are restricted in root cause tracing, they are identified as restricted tracing candidate relationships. These restricted tracing candidate relationships indicate that the candidate relationship was not negated by the backflow detection results, but its object continuity still has issues such as missing, unconfirmed, restricted boundaries, or insufficient evidence. Restricted tracing candidate relationships can retain their restrictive basis, such as the missing defect record status, suspected continuity status, conflict status, restricted boundary information in the inter-segment status record, or information that only partially satisfies the correspondence between the backflow detection results and the previous detection results. Restricted tracing candidate relationships are stored hierarchically with deterministic tracing candidate relationships in the defect object tracing basis, so that subsequent steps can distinguish the reliability of different tracing bases.

[0078] For restricted traceability candidate relationships, this embodiment does not directly treat them as deterministic traceability candidate relationships, nor does it directly exclude them if they are not negated. These restricted traceability candidate relationships are used to retain candidate relationships that still have some detection basis but are insufficient to confirm the continuity of the object, so that candidate relationships corresponding to missing data, unconfirmed records, suspected continuous states, or restricted boundaries can enter the defect object traceability basis at the restricted level.

[0079] Candidate relationships that do not participate in deterministic root cause analysis are designated as exclusion relationships. These exclusion relationships indicate that the candidate relationship has been jointly determined by the backflow test results, the previous stage test results, and the inter-stage status records to be unsuitable as a candidate for deterministic root cause analysis. Exclusion relationships may retain exclusion criteria, such as backflow test results negating the continuity of the object, conflicting or separated states in the inter-stage status records, information regarding inexplicable transformations of defect manifestations, or information determining that a corresponding relationship for defect records cannot be established when the test results are complete. Retaining the criteria for exclusion is beneficial for subsequently explaining why the candidate relationship does not participate in deterministic root cause analysis, but the exclusion relationship is not considered a candidate relationship for deterministic root cause analysis.

[0080] In this embodiment, the defect object tracing foundation can be hierarchically organized according to the participation method of candidate relationships. The defect object tracing foundation includes at least deterministic tracing candidate relationships, restricted tracing candidate relationships, and exclusion relationships. Deterministic tracing candidate relationships originate from candidate relationships that can participate in deterministic root cause tracing; restricted tracing candidate relationships originate from candidate relationships that are restricted from participating in root cause tracing; and exclusion relationships originate from candidate relationships that do not participate in deterministic root cause tracing. All three types of relationships are associated with the original candidate relationships, backflow detection results, previous detection results, and inter-segment status records, enabling the tracing of their formation process.

[0081] It should be noted that the defect object tracing basis formed in step four is not the same as the final defect root cause tracing result. The focus of step four is to determine how candidate relationships participate in deterministic root cause tracing, and to stratify different candidate relationships into deterministic tracing candidate relationships, restricted tracing candidate relationships, and exclusion relationships.

[0082] The defect object tracing basis serves as the input basis for the subsequent formation of defect root cause tracing results.

[0083] Step 5: Based on the detection segment information, detection result basis, and the way the candidate relationship participates in the deterministic root cause tracing in the defect object tracing basis, a defect root cause tracing result is formed, which includes the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range, tracing status, and corresponding detection basis.

[0084] In this embodiment, step five is executed based on the defect object tracing foundation established in step four. The defect object tracing foundation includes deterministic tracing candidate relationships, restricted tracing candidate relationships, and exclusion relationships. Step five does not re-evaluate whether the subsequent detection results can be used as reflow detection results, nor does it re-determine the participation method of candidate relationships in deterministic root cause tracing. Instead, based on the defect object tracing foundation established in step four, it organizes the detection segment information, detection result basis, and candidate relationship participation methods that can be used for tracing output into the defect root cause tracing results.

[0085] When generating defect root cause tracing results, the detection segment information corresponding to deterministic and limited tracing candidate relationships can be read first. The detection segment information may include the preceding detection segment, the following detection segment, the detection segment identifier, the detection order, and the detection segment range where the corresponding detection result is located, all associated with the candidate relationship. For deterministic tracing candidate relationships, the candidate root cause detection segment can be determined based on the earliest detection segment in the relationship that can form an object continuity with the subsequent backflow detection result. When the deterministic tracing candidate relationship involves multiple consecutive detection segments, and the detection results in these multiple detection segments collectively constitute a traceable defect manifestation change process, the continuous range formed by these multiple detection segments can be determined as the candidate root cause detection segment range.

[0086] For restricted tracing candidate relationships, candidate root cause detection segments or detection segment ranges can be determined based on the detection segment information covered by the restricted tracing candidate relationship. Since the candidate relationship corresponding to the restricted tracing candidate relationship is not negated by the reflow detection results, but is insufficient to confirm the continuity of the object, when forming the defect root cause tracing result, its corresponding detection segment can be used as the candidate root cause detection segment under the restricted tracing state, or its corresponding range of preceding and following detection segments can be used as the candidate root cause detection segment range under the restricted tracing state. This process does not equate restricted tracing candidate relationships with deterministic tracing candidate relationships, but rather distinguishes them in the defect root cause tracing result through the tracing state.

[0087] When reading the basis for the detection results, the system can read the preceding detection results, reflow detection results, inter-segment status basis records, and the method by which the candidate relationship participates in the deterministic root cause tracing, which are associated with deterministic or limited tracing candidate relationships. The basis for the detection results indicates the source of the detection data upon which the defect root cause tracing result is based. The corresponding detection basis serves as the output content in the defect root cause tracing result, representing the basis source corresponding to the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range. The corresponding detection basis may include defect records in the preceding detection results, explicit defect records in the subsequent reflow detection results, the existence status of defect records in the inter-segment status basis records, the change status of defect manifestations, and the difference status of detection conclusions, as well as the basis for determining the candidate relationship as a deterministic or limited tracing candidate relationship.

[0088] When a candidate relationship in the defect object tracing basis is determined to be a deterministic tracing candidate relationship, a deterministic tracing state is formed in the defect root cause tracing results. The deterministic tracing state indicates that the candidate relationship corresponding to the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range has been supported by the backflow detection results, the previous detection results, and the inter-segment state records, and can be used as a deterministic tracing output. At this time, the defect root cause tracing results at least record the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range, the deterministic tracing state, and the corresponding detection basis.

[0089] When a candidate relationship in the defect object tracing baseline is determined to be a restricted tracing candidate relationship, a restricted tracing state is formed in the defect root cause tracing results. The restricted tracing state indicates that the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range has certain tracing basis, but this basis includes situations such as missing defect records, unconfirmed records, suspected continuity, restricted boundaries, or other insufficient conditions to confirm the continuity of the object. Therefore, under the restricted tracing state, the defect root cause tracing results can simultaneously record the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range, the restricted tracing state, and the corresponding detection basis, thus maintaining a distinction between the restricted tracing state and the deterministic tracing state in the results.

[0090] When a candidate relationship is determined to be an exclusion relationship in step four, the exclusion relationship is excluded from the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range corresponding to the deterministic tracing state. In other words, the exclusion relationship is not used as the basis for forming the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range in the deterministic tracing state. The exclusion relationship and its exclusion basis can be retained in the defect object tracing basis, but when forming the defect root cause tracing result corresponding to the deterministic tracing state in step five, the exclusion relationship is not used as a deterministic tracing candidate relationship.

[0091] When generating specific defect root cause tracing results, the results can be organized according to candidate segments or candidate relationships of the defect object. For each candidate segment of the defect object, the deterministic tracing candidate relationships and restricted tracing candidate relationships can be read, and corresponding result records can be generated respectively. Each result record can include the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range, tracing status, and corresponding detection basis. Among them, the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range is used to characterize the traceable detection segment position or detection segment range in the candidate segment of the defect object; the tracing status is used to characterize whether the result record belongs to the deterministic tracing status or the restricted tracing status; the corresponding detection basis is used to characterize the detection results, backflow detection results, inter-segment status basis records, and candidate relationship participation methods that support the tracing status and the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range.

[0092] In this embodiment, the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range in the defect root cause tracing results is used to characterize the detection segment location or detection segment range where the defect manifestation can first be traced and associated, rather than directly outputting the cause of equipment failure, material cause, personnel cause, or supplier responsibility cause. The corresponding detection basis is used to explain which detection results, reflow detection results, inter-segment status records, and candidate relationship participation methods support the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range.

[0093] In one implementation, if a candidate relationship is determined as a deterministic traceability candidate relationship, and its front-end detection result is located in the first detection segment, and its backflow detection result is located in the third detection segment, and the inter-segment status records between the two support the continuity of the object, then the first detection segment can be determined as a candidate root cause detection segment, or the detection segments related to the defect object between the first and third detection segments can be determined as the range of candidate root cause detection segments, and a deterministic traceability status is formed in the defect root cause traceability results. At the same time, the front-end detection result of the first detection segment, the backflow detection result of the third detection segment, and the corresponding inter-segment status records are recorded as the corresponding detection basis.

[0094] In another implementation, if a candidate relationship is determined to be a restricted traceability candidate relationship, for example, if the candidate relationship has a missing defect record, an unconfirmed record, or a restricted boundary, but the reflow test results do not deny the continuity of its object, then the detection segment involved in the candidate relationship can be determined as a candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range under the restricted traceability state, and a restricted traceability state is formed in the defect root cause traceability results. At the same time, the inter-segment state basis record that causes the restriction, the reflow test results, and the previous segment test results are recorded as the corresponding test basis.

[0095] In a specific example, the same touchscreen product object sequentially passes through the bonding inspection section, the appearance inspection section, and the re-inspection inspection section, and the results of its multiple inspections can be shown in the table below.

[0096]

[0097] In the above example, if the first location range of area A and the second location range of area A are in the same or adjacent preset detection areas, and the bubble is suspected to belong to the preset convertible defect type set, then a suspected continuous state can be formed between the bonding detection segment and the appearance detection segment. A suspected continuous state can also be formed between the appearance detection segment and the re-inspection detection segment based on the missing defect record state, and this missing defect record state will be used as the limiting basis for subsequent limited traceability candidate relationships. When a clear defect record in the re-inspection detection segment can correspond to a candidate relationship formed by the bonding detection segment, the detection result of the re-inspection detection segment will be used as the reflow detection result. If the reflow detection result does not negate the object continuity between the weak anomaly record of the bonding detection segment and the clear defect record of the re-inspection detection segment, and the inter-segment state basis record can support the same defect object, then the corresponding candidate relationship will be determined as a deterministic traceability candidate relationship, and a candidate root cause detection segment will be formed as the bonding detection segment, or a candidate root cause detection segment range will be formed from the bonding detection segment to the re-inspection detection segment as the defect root cause traceability result.

[0098] In the above example, if the backflow detection result, the front-end detection result associated with the candidate relationship, and the inter-segment status record are sufficient to resolve the unconfirmed basis formed by the missing defect record, then the corresponding candidate relationship is determined as a deterministic traceability candidate relationship; if the unconfirmed basis is still not resolved, then the corresponding candidate relationship is determined as a restricted traceability candidate relationship.

[0099] When the downstream detection result arrives late, it does not directly overwrite the existing defect root cause tracing result. Instead, it treats the downstream detection result as a new downstream detection result. Based on the delayed downstream detection result, it determines the affected candidate relationship. Only for the affected candidate relationship, it re-executes the steps of forming a backflow detection result, determining the method of participating in the deterministic root cause tracing, and forming the defect root cause tracing result. After re-execution, it can update the tracing status of the corresponding candidate relationship based on the new backflow detection result, and mark the original tracing result as a historical status, so that the hierarchical affiliation of the unaffected candidate relationship remains unchanged.

[0100] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention in any way. Although the present invention has been disclosed above with reference to preferred embodiments, it is not intended to limit the present invention. Any person skilled in the art can make some modifications or alterations to the above-disclosed technical content to create equivalent embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention. Any simple modifications, equivalent changes and alterations made to the above embodiments based on the technical essence of the present invention without departing from the scope of the present invention shall still fall within the scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for tracing the root cause of touchscreen defects based on multi-segment detection result feedback, characterized in that, include: Step 1: Obtain multiple test results for the same related test object, and form a group of test results to be associated based on the test segment identifier, test order, and defect record correspondence. Step 2: Perform object continuity judgment on the detection results of adjacent detection segments in the group of detection results to be associated, and form an inter-segment state basis record including the existence status of defect record, the change status of defect performance, and the difference status of detection conclusion. Based on the inter-segment state basis record, form an inter-segment object continuity status including continuous status, suspected continuous status, conflict status, and separation status, and then form defect object candidate segments and candidate relationships. Step 3: When the subsequent detection results form a clear defect record and can be mapped to the candidate relationship, the subsequent detection results are used as the reflow detection results and associated with the candidate relationship; Step 4: Based on the backflow detection results, the front-end detection results associated with the candidate relationship, and the inter-segment status record, without replacing the front-end detection results with the backflow detection results, determine the way in which the candidate relationship participates in deterministic root cause tracing, and change the hierarchical affiliation of the candidate relationship in the defect object tracing basis according to the method, forming a defect object tracing basis that includes deterministic tracing candidate relationships, restricted tracing candidate relationships, and exclusion relationships; Step 5: Based on the detection segment information, detection result basis, and the way the candidate relationship participates in the deterministic root cause tracing in the defect object tracing basis, a defect root cause tracing result is formed, which includes the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range, tracing status, and corresponding detection basis.

2. The touchscreen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-segment detection result feedback according to claim 1, characterized in that, The same detection associated object is one or more of the same touch screen product object, the same defect record associated object, and the same detection flow object; the multi-segment detection results include detection segment identifier, detection time, detection order, product object identifier, defect record identifier, defect performance information, and detection conclusion. The defect performance information includes at least one of defect location, defect type, defect level, and defect area.

3. The touchscreen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-segment detection result feedback according to claim 1, characterized in that, The formation of the inter-segment object continuity state includes: a continuity state is formed when both adjacent detection segments have defect records, and the changes in defect manifestations between the defect records do not disrupt the object identity and the detection conclusions do not have a negative relationship; a suspected continuity state is formed when one detection segment has a clear defect record, another detection segment has a suspected defect record, a weak anomaly record, or an unconfirmed record, or another detection segment is in a defect record missing state but a candidate correspondence can still be established based on at least one of the detection segment order, product object identification, defect manifestation information, and detection conclusions, and neither a conflict state nor a separation state is formed; a conflict state is formed when the detection conclusions of adjacent detection segments contradict each other or the defect manifestations cannot be interpreted, but it cannot be determined that the adjacent detection results point to different defect objects; and a separation state is formed when the detection results of adjacent detection segments clearly point to different defect objects, or when it is determined that the defect record correspondence cannot be established when the detection result information is complete.

4. The touchscreen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-segment detection result feedback according to claim 3, characterized in that, The process of forming the candidate segments and candidate relationships of the defective objects includes: keeping the detection results corresponding to continuous states and suspected continuous states in the same candidate segment of the defective objects, and using conflict states and separation states as the boundaries of the candidate segments; wherein, for the detection results corresponding to conflict states but whose object continuity cannot be ruled out, a restricted boundary is formed, and a restricted candidate relationship is established between the detection results on both sides of the restricted boundary.

5. The touchscreen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-segment detection result feedback according to claim 1, characterized in that, Using the post-processing detection results as reflow detection results includes: determining whether the explicit defect records in the post-processing detection results meet the corresponding conditions with the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, detection segment order, and defect record correspondence; wherein, the defect manifestation meeting the corresponding conditions includes: the post-processing detection results and the pre-processing detection results associated with the candidate relationship meet the position correspondence rules in terms of defect location, and meet the preset correspondence rules in terms of at least one of defect type and defect level; the position correspondence rules include that the defect location is located in the same preset detection area, adjacent preset detection areas, or the coordinate deviation does not exceed the preset position deviation range; the preset correspondence rules for defect type include that the defect type is the same or belongs to a preset convertible defect type set; the preset correspondence rules for defect level include that the defect level is the same or the level change does not exceed the preset level change range; when the defect location cannot be completely obtained, it is jointly determined whether the corresponding conditions of the defect manifestation are met based on the defect record correspondence, detection segment order, the preset correspondence rules for defect type, and the preset correspondence rules for defect level; if the corresponding conditions are met, the post-processing detection results are used as reflow detection results; if the corresponding conditions are not met, the post-processing detection results are not used as reflow detection results.

6. The touchscreen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-segment detection result feedback according to claim 5, characterized in that, The methods for determining whether a candidate relationship participates in deterministic root cause tracing include: when the backflow detection result supports the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, the candidate relationship can participate in deterministic root cause tracing; when the backflow detection result does not negate but is insufficient to confirm the continuity of the object, the candidate relationship is restricted from participating in root cause tracing; when the backflow detection result negates the continuity of the object, the candidate relationship is not allowed to participate in deterministic root cause tracing.

7. The touchscreen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-segment detection result feedback according to claim 6, characterized in that, The basis for tracing the defective object includes: for candidate relationships formed by continuous or suspected continuous states, when the explicit defect record in the reflow test results and the preceding test results associated with the candidate relationship all meet the corresponding conditions in terms of defect manifestation, test segment order, and defect record correspondence, and there is no test conclusion in the inter-segment state basis record that denies the continuity of the object, and when the reflow test results, the preceding test results associated with the candidate relationship, and the inter-segment state basis record determine that there is no unresolved unconfirmed basis, the candidate relationship is determined as a deterministic tracing candidate relationship; when the reflow test results do not deny the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, but ... preceding test results associated with the candidate relationship determine that there is no unresolved unconfirmed basis, the candidate relationship is determined as a deterministic tracing candidate relationship. When the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationship and the inter-segment status records determine that there are still unresolved unconfirmed bases, the candidate relationship is determined as a restricted traceability candidate relationship. When the backflow detection results negate the continuity of the object corresponding to the candidate relationship, or when the inter-segment status records determine that the detection results on both sides of the candidate relationship point to different defect objects, the candidate relationship is determined as an exclusion relationship. Among them, the deterministic traceability candidate relationship corresponds to a deterministic traceability state in the defect root cause traceability results, the restricted traceability candidate relationship corresponds to a restricted traceability state in the defect root cause traceability results, and the exclusion relationship is excluded from the candidate root cause detection segment or detection segment range corresponding to the deterministic traceability state.

8. The touchscreen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-segment detection result feedback according to claim 1, characterized in that, Before using the subsequent detection results as reflow detection results, the process further includes: forming an object performance consistency state based on changes in defect location, defect type, and defect level; forming a source continuity state based on the sequential relationship of detection segments, the correspondence relationship of detection segments, and the source of detection conclusions; and cross-validating the object performance consistency state and the source continuity state to form an association qualification state for determining whether the subsequent detection results can correspond to the candidate relationship; wherein, the object performance consistency state is formed when the defect location of the subsequent detection results and the preceding detection results associated with the candidate relationship satisfies the location correspondence rule, and at least one of the defect type and defect level satisfies the corresponding preset correspondence rule; the location correspondence rule includes that the defect location is located in the same preset detection area, adjacent preset detection areas, or the coordinate deviation does not exceed a preset position. The deviation range, the preset corresponding rule for the defect type includes the same defect type or belonging to a preset set of convertible defect types, and the preset corresponding rule for the defect level includes the same defect level or the level change does not exceed a preset level change range; when the defect location cannot be completely obtained, the object performance consistency state is formed by the defect record correspondence, the detection segment order, the preset corresponding rule for the defect type and the preset corresponding rule for the defect level; the source continuity state is formed when the subsequent detection result is located after the detection segment associated with the candidate relationship, the subsequent detection result belongs to the same detection associated object, and the source of the detection conclusion of the subsequent detection result can establish a source correspondence relationship with the detection result associated with the candidate relationship through the detection task identifier, detection equipment record identifier, re-inspection reference relationship or defect record correspondence.

9. The touchscreen defect root cause tracing method based on multi-segment detection result feedback according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the multiple detection results have missing data, conflicting detection conclusions, delayed arrival of subsequent detection results, or cannot be mapped to the candidate relationship, a deterministic traceability state is not directly formed. Specifically, when missing data makes it impossible to determine the corresponding relationship, a pending confirmation state is formed. When the detection result information is complete but cannot be mapped to the candidate relationship in terms of defect manifestation, detection segment order, and defect record correspondence, an association qualification invalid state is formed, and the detection result is not used as a return detection result. When the detection conclusions conflict but the continuity of the object cannot be ruled out, a restricted traceability state is formed. When the detection conclusions conflict and the continuity of the object has been denied, an exclusion relationship is formed. When the subsequent detection results arrive late, the steps of forming a return detection result, determining the candidate relationship to participate in deterministic root cause traceability, and forming a defect root cause traceability result are re-executed.

Images