Method for automatically checking product release state based on enterprise quality inspection rule library

Abstract

The application discloses a product release state automatic verification method based on an enterprise quality inspection rule library, relates to the technical field of quality management informatization, and obtains product identification, batch identification, process identification, customer identification, current release application state, single inspection field, single inspection result and field tolerance requirement of a product batch to be released, performs standardization, source confirmation, unit consistency processing and single qualification verification on the single inspection field, and generates a basic single verification result; according to the product identification, the process identification, the customer identification and the current release application state, a combined prohibition release rule set is extracted from the enterprise quality inspection rule library, a combined verification object is constructed and verifiability checking is performed; when the single qualification and the combined verification object are verifiable, combined prohibition release verification is performed, a release state verification result is generated according to a combined prohibition release result, a to-be-reviewed object result and a state processing result; and the combined prohibition release rule adaptation record is updated according to a review feedback result.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of information technology for quality management, and more specifically, to a method for automatically verifying the release status of products based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base. Background Technology

[0002] This relates to the field of quality management information technology, specifically an automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base. During product manufacturing, assembly, re-inspection, rework, and final release, enterprises typically use quality management systems, inspection record forms, data collected from testing equipment, and manual verification records to check tolerances for individual inspection fields in product batches. Based on whether the individual inspection results meet the lower limit, upper limit, boundary inclusion, unit, and applicable scope of the field, the enterprise determines whether the product meets the conditions for entering subsequent processes or final release. Existing release management methods typically standardize individual inspection fields, input data, compare results, and provide anomaly alerts, and combine these with product model, process nodes, customer requirements, and quality agreements to form certain release judgment criteria.

[0003] The existing technology has the following shortcomings: Currently, most product release verification still relies primarily on whether individual inspection fields meet tolerance requirements, easily overlooking the combined prohibition relationships between multiple individual inspection fields. For example, even when multiple fields are within their respective tolerance ranges, field differences, proportions, order, mutual exclusion, dependencies, or defect location associations may still not meet internal control rules or specific customer requirements. Furthermore, the applicable rule versions, priority, and status processing results differ across product identifiers, process identifiers, customer identifiers, and current release application status. Relying solely on manual experience for combined judgments can easily lead to issues such as rule omissions, version misuse, incomplete review basis, and inconsistent release judgments for similar batches.

[0004] To address the above problems, this invention proposes a solution. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To overcome the aforementioned deficiencies of the prior art, embodiments of the present invention provide an automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base, in order to solve the problems mentioned in the background art.

[0006] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: An automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base, including the steps; Step S1: Obtain the product identifier, batch identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, current release application status, structured quality inspection history data, data collected by testing equipment, data manually reviewed and entered, individual inspection fields, individual inspection results and field tolerance requirements for the batch of products to be released; perform field standardization, source confirmation, unit consistency processing and individual conformity verification on the individual inspection fields, and generate basic individual verification results. Step S2: Based on the product identifier, process identifier, customer identifier and current release application status, extract the combined prohibited release rule set from the enterprise quality inspection rule base, and construct the combined verification object from the basic single verification results based on the associated inspection fields in the combined prohibited release rule set. Perform a verifiability check on the combined verification object and generate a verifiable object result or an object result to be reviewed. Step S3: If the basic single-item verification result meets the single-item qualification condition and the combined verification object has verifiable object results, perform combined air-free verification on the combined verification object according to the rule hit condition in the combined air-free rule set, generate combined air-free result, and correct the current release application status according to the combined air-free result, the object to be reviewed result and the status processing result, and generate release status verification result. Step S4: Update the combined prohibition rule adaptation record according to the review feedback result corresponding to the release status verification result, and write the updated combined prohibition rule adaptation record back to the enterprise quality inspection rule library.

[0007] In a preferred embodiment, step S1 includes the following: Structured quality inspection history data, data collected by testing equipment, and data manually reviewed and entered are collected according to the same product identifier, the same batch identifier, and the same process identifier to form a basic quality inspection data package. Based on the basic quality inspection data package, field standardization, source confirmation, unit consistency processing, and individual qualification verification are performed on individual inspection fields and individual inspection results. Field standardization involves mapping the form field names in the structured quality inspection history data, the measurement point names in the data collected by the testing equipment, and the input field names in the manually reviewed and entered data to the standard field names in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base, thereby generating standardized single-item inspection fields. If there are multiple data sources for the same single inspection field, the final data source to be used shall be determined according to the data source priority result in the enterprise quality inspection rule base; Unit consistency processing involves converting individual inspection results into units consistent with the field tolerance requirements based on the field unit results in the field tolerance requirements. Individual conformity verification is performed according to the following logic: When a single test result exists and the field tolerance requirement has both a lower limit result and an upper limit result, determine whether the single test result is located between the lower limit result and the upper limit result. If the boundary includes the result, it means that the boundary is included. If the result of a single test is equal to the lower limit result or the upper limit result of the field, it is still judged as a single test qualified. If the boundary includes the result, it means that the boundary is not included. When the single inspection result is equal to the lower limit result or the upper limit result of the field, it is determined to be a single item pending review result or a single item unqualified result according to the boundary handling rules in the field tolerance requirements.

[0008] In a preferred embodiment, step S2 includes the following: The enterprise quality inspection rule base includes product rule area, process rule area, customer rule area, field rule area, combined prohibited rule area, rule version area, rule priority area and status processing area; Each combined prohibition rule in the combined prohibition rule set includes at least the rule identifier, applicable product identifier, applicable process identifier, applicable customer identifier, applicable release application status, associated inspection field, combined rule type, rule hit condition, status processing result, rule priority result, and rule version applicable result; When extracting a set of combined prohibited release rules from the enterprise's quality inspection rule library, first extract the candidate combined prohibited release rules corresponding to the product to be released based on the product identifier, then remove the candidate combined prohibited release rules that are not applicable to the current process based on the process identifier, retain the customer-specific rules and enterprise internal control rules applicable to the current customer based on the customer identifier, and finally retain the combined prohibited release rules applicable to the first release, release after rework, release after re-inspection, or release after abnormal handling based on the current release application status. After the combined verification object is constructed, a verifiability check is performed. The verifiability check includes field completeness check, data source priority check, field version check, signature confirmation check, and rule version check. When all associated inspection fields in the combined verification object exist, the data sources meet the data source priority results, the field tolerance requirements are applicable to the current product and the current process, the signature confirmation results meet the requirements of the enterprise quality inspection rule base, and the rule version of the combined prohibition rule is applicable, a verifiable object result is generated. Otherwise, generate the result of the object to be reviewed.

[0009] In a preferred embodiment, step S3 includes the following: Combined release prohibition verification is used to determine whether the combination of multiple individual inspection fields, although each meets the field tolerance requirements, has triggered the release prohibition condition or the condition pending review in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base. The combined tolerance verification does not replace the individual tolerance verification, but is performed after the individual tolerance verification. Only when the individual qualification result of the relevant individual inspection field is qualified will the combination relationship between the fields be further judged. When the combined rule type is a field difference rule, multiple associated test fields in the combined verification object are read, the difference relationship between their individual test results is calculated, and the difference relationship is compared with the allowable difference threshold result in the rule hit condition. If the difference relationship is greater than the allowable difference threshold result, the field difference rule is determined to be hit. When the combined rule type is a field ratio rule, the numerator and denominator fields in the combined verification object are read, and the ratio allowable range result is determined according to the rule hit condition. If the ratio relationship can be calculated and the ratio relationship is not within the ratio allowable range result, the field ratio rule is determined to be hit. When the combined rule type is field order rule, the order requirements between multiple associated test fields are read according to the rule hit conditions. If the individual test results of the associated test fields do not meet the specified size order, grade order or process sequence order, the field order rule is determined to be hit. When multiple combined verification objects generate different status results at the same time, the final release status verification result is determined according to the status priority rule. The priority rules for status are as follows: the prohibited release status takes precedence over the pending review status, the pending review status takes precedence over the permitted release status, customer-specific rules take precedence over enterprise-standard rules, security performance-related rules take precedence over ordinary appearance-related rules, and the current valid version rules take precedence over historical version rules. If any combination of verification objects generates a denial of release result, the current release application status will be corrected to a denial of release status; If there is no result prohibiting release but there is a result for an object pending review or a result for a pending review status, the current release application status will be corrected to pending review status; A release status is generated only when the basic single-item verification result meets the single-item qualification condition, all verifiable object results do not match the combined prohibition rule, and there are no object results to be reviewed.

[0010] In a preferred embodiment, step S4 includes the following: The review and feedback results include manual review conclusions, customer acceptance feedback, historical release results, and conclusions on handling anomalies; The combined prohibition rule adaptation record is used to record the adaptation status of combined prohibition rules for specific product identifiers, process identifiers, customer identifiers, and the current release application status; First, the consistency between the release status verification result and the manual review conclusion is judged. If they are consistent, a review consistency result is generated. If they are inconsistent, a review inconsistency result is generated and the combined verification objects, combined prohibition rules, associated inspection fields and status processing results that caused the inconsistency are recorded. If the review feedback supports the applicability of the combined ban rules, the rule adaptation stability result of the corresponding combined ban rules will be improved according to the single update magnitude result; If the review feedback does not support the applicability of the combined ban rules, the rule adaptation stability result of the corresponding combined ban rules will be reduced according to the single update magnitude result. Based on the comparison between the stable results of rule adaptation and the results of priority call threshold and pending confirmation threshold, it is determined whether to prioritize the call of the combined ban rules, mark it as a rule requiring attention, or mark it as a rule pending confirmation in the next batch.

[0011] The technical effects and advantages of the automatic product release status verification method based on the enterprise quality inspection rule base of this invention are as follows: By first standardizing, confirming the source, processing unit consistency, and verifying the conformity of individual inspection fields, and then extracting a set of combined prohibition rules based on the enterprise's quality inspection rule base and constructing combined verification objects, product release verification no longer relies solely on whether the results of individual inspections fall within the field tolerance requirements. Instead, it can further identify situations where multiple individual inspection fields, although individually qualified, have triggered prohibition or pending review conditions due to differences, proportions, sequences, mutual exclusions, dependencies, or defect location associations. Simultaneously, through verifiability checks, status priority rules, and release basis chains, it can clearly distinguish between permitted release status, pending review status, and prohibited release status, and retain the basis for status correction, facilitating subsequent quality traceability and manual review. The combined prohibition rule adaptation records are updated in a controlled manner through review feedback results, enabling subsequent batches to more accurately invoke combined prohibition rules under the same product identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, and current release application status, thereby improving the rule adaptability and verification consistency of the automatic product release status verification process. Attached Figure Description

[0012] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the automatic verification method for product release status based on the enterprise quality inspection rule base of the present invention.

[0013] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of basic quality inspection data collection and individual verification. Detailed Implementation

[0014] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0015] Example: Please refer to Figures 1-2 As shown, this invention discloses an automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base, including the following steps: Step S1: Obtain the product identifier, batch identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, current release application status, structured quality inspection history data, data collected by testing equipment, data manually reviewed and entered, individual inspection fields, individual inspection results and field tolerance requirements for the batch of products to be released; perform field standardization, source confirmation, unit consistency processing and individual conformity verification on the individual inspection fields, and generate basic individual verification results. Step S2: Based on the product identifier, process identifier, customer identifier and current release application status, extract the combined prohibited release rule set from the enterprise quality inspection rule base, and construct the combined verification object from the basic single verification results based on the associated inspection fields in the combined prohibited release rule set. Perform a verifiability check on the combined verification object and generate a verifiable object result or an object result to be reviewed. Step S3: If the basic single-item verification result meets the single-item qualification condition and the combined verification object has verifiable object results, perform combined air-free verification on the combined verification object according to the rule hit condition in the combined air-free rule set, generate combined air-free result, and correct the current release application status according to the combined air-free result, the object to be reviewed result and the status processing result, and generate release status verification result. Step S4: Update the combined prohibition rule adaptation record according to the review feedback result corresponding to the release status verification result, and write the updated combined prohibition rule adaptation record back to the enterprise quality inspection rule library.

[0016] In step S1, the product identifier, batch identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, current release application status, structured quality inspection history data, data collected by testing equipment, manually reviewed and entered data, individual inspection fields, individual inspection results, and field tolerance requirements of the product batch to be released are obtained. The individual inspection fields are then standardized, their sources are confirmed, unit consistency is processed, and individual conformity is verified to generate basic individual verification results. Specific content includes: Obtain the product identifier, batch identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, current release application status, structured quality inspection history data, data collected by testing equipment, data manually reviewed and entered, individual inspection fields, individual inspection results, and field tolerance requirements for the batch of products to be released; Based on the structured history parsing method and the individual tolerance verification method, the individual inspection fields and individual inspection results are standardized, source confirmed, unit consistency processed, and individual conformity verified to generate basic individual verification results.

[0017] It should be noted that the product identifier is used to identify the product model or product family to which the product to be released belongs; Batch identifiers are used to identify the production batch, inspection batch, or rework batch corresponding to the products to be released; Process identifiers are used to characterize the manufacturing process, assembly process, inspection process, rework process, or re-inspection process corresponding to a single inspection field; Customer identification is used to characterize the customer's acceptance rules, customer quality agreements, or customer-specific inspection requirements applicable to the products currently awaiting release. The current release application status is used to characterize the release application status of the batch of products to be released when it enters this method, including the status of pending verification, application for release, pending review, or prohibited release.

[0018] It should be noted that the structured quality inspection history data refers to the electronic form data, inspection record data, re-inspection record data, abnormal handling record data, signature confirmation data, or product history data that have already been generated in the existing quality management system. The data collected by the testing equipment consists of data generated by measuring instruments, testing equipment, visual inspection equipment, 3D scanning equipment, or online testing stations. Manually verified data is data that has been confirmed, supplemented, or verified by inspection personnel, reviewers, or quality engineers.

[0019] After the above data enters this step, it is collected according to the same product identifier, the same batch identifier, and the same process identifier to form the basic quality inspection data package of the product batch to be released.

[0020] Furthermore, field standardization refers to mapping the form field names in the structured quality inspection history data, the measurement point names in the data collected by the testing equipment, and the input field names in the manually reviewed data to the standard field names in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base, thereby generating standardized single-item inspection fields.

[0021] If there are multiple data sources for the same single inspection field, the final data source to be used will be determined based on the data source priority result in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base.

[0022] The data source priority result indicates the order in which data collected by testing equipment, structured quality inspection history data, and manually reviewed and entered data are used when there is a conflict in the same field.

[0023] It should be noted that when there are multiple individual inspection results with different values ​​in the same individual inspection field, none of the results are selected directly. Instead, it is first determined whether the multiple individual inspection results come from the same batch identifier, the same process identifier, and the same customer identifier.

[0024] If multiple individual inspection results belong to different batches, different processes, or different customer rules, a field source conflict result will be generated, and the corresponding individual inspection field will be marked as a field to be reviewed.

[0025] If multiple individual inspection results belong to the same batch, the same process, and the same customer rule, the individual inspection results are selected according to the priority of the data source, and the unselected data are recorded as backup quality inspection evidence in the basic individual verification results.

[0026] Furthermore, unit consistency processing refers to converting individual inspection results into units consistent with the field tolerance requirements based on the field unit results in the field tolerance requirements.

[0027] If the units of a single test result can be converted, then the unit conversion result is generated. If the unit of a single inspection result cannot be converted, or if the field tolerance requirement lacks a field unit result, a unit pending review status result will be generated, and the corresponding single inspection field will be marked as a field pending review.

[0028] Fields pending review are not directly included in the approval decision, but can be used as the basis for review when constructing subsequent combined verification objects.

[0029] Furthermore, field tolerance requirements include field lower limit results, field upper limit results, boundary inclusion results, field unit results, field applicable process results, field applicable customer results, and field version applicable results.

[0030] The lower limit result of the field is used to characterize the lower limit boundary allowed by a single test field; The field upper limit result is used to characterize the upper limit boundary allowed by a single test field; The boundary inclusion result is used to characterize whether a single test result is still considered qualified when it equals the lower limit result or the upper limit result of the field. The field's applicable process result is used to characterize the range of processes to which the field's tolerance requirement applies; The "Applicable Customers" field result is used to characterize the range of customers to whom the tolerance requirement for this field applies. The field version applicable result is used to indicate whether the tolerance requirement of this field applies to the current batch of products awaiting release.

[0031] It should be noted that the single-item conformity verification is performed according to the following logic: when a single-item inspection result exists, and the field tolerance requirement has both a lower limit result and a higher limit result, it is determined whether the single-item inspection result is located between the lower limit result and the higher limit result. If the boundary includes the result, it means that the boundary is included. If the result of a single test is equal to the lower limit result or the upper limit result of the field, it is still judged as a single test qualified. If the boundary includes the result, it means that the boundary is not included. When the result of a single test is equal to the lower limit result or the upper limit result of the field, it is judged as a single item pending review or a single item unqualified.

[0032] When the field tolerance requirement only has the field lower limit result, determine whether the individual test result is not lower than the field lower limit result; When the field tolerance requirement only has the upper limit result of the field, determine whether the individual test result is not higher than the upper limit result of the field. When the field tolerance requirement is missing the lower limit result and the upper limit result, a field tolerance missing result is generated, and the corresponding single inspection field is marked as a field to be reviewed.

[0033] Furthermore, this step also generates individual boundary proximity results.

[0034] The single-item boundary proximity result is used to characterize whether a single-item test result, although meeting the field tolerance requirements, has approached the boundary of the field tolerance requirements.

[0035] The specific judgment logic is as follows: read the boundary warning distance result corresponding to the single inspection field from the enterprise quality inspection rule base; If the distance from a single test result to the lower limit of a field or the upper limit of a field is less than the boundary warning distance, then the single test field is marked as a boundary-close field. If the distance from a single test result to both the lower limit and upper limit of a field is not less than the boundary warning distance, then the single test field is marked as a boundary stable field.

[0036] While a boundary proximity to a field does not directly lead to a denied pass, it is used in subsequent combined denial verification to determine whether a combined denial rule is triggered when multiple fields are simultaneously close to the boundary.

[0037] For example, for two assembly clearance fields, the first assembly clearance and the second assembly clearance may both be within the tolerance requirements of their respective fields, but when both are close to the upper limit boundary, it may lead to insufficient assembly fit allowance.

[0038] At this point, the existing single-item tolerance verification will only output that both fields are qualified, while this step provides a further judgment basis for subsequent combined prohibition verification by using the single-item boundary approximation result.

[0039] The basic single-item verification results generated in this step include product identifier, batch identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, current release application status, standardized single-item inspection field, single-item inspection result, field tolerance requirements, single-item qualified result, single-item boundary closeness result, data source result, unit conversion completion result, field source conflict result, field tolerance missing result, and field result pending review.

[0040] If any single inspection field has a non-compliant result, that field can be triggered to prohibit release or be pending review according to the existing single tolerance verification logic; If all individual inspection fields participating in the combined verification meet the individual qualification conditions, the release status will not be output directly, but the basic individual verification results will be input into step S2.

[0041] Through this step, the existing structured quality inspection data and individual tolerance verification results in quality management are organized into basic individual verification results that can be used for combined emission prohibition verification. This enables subsequent steps to clarify which fields have passed individually, which fields are close to the boundary, which fields have source conflicts, and which fields are applicable to the current product, current process, and current customer.

[0042] In step S2, based on the product identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, and current release application status, a set of combined prohibited release rules is extracted from the enterprise's quality inspection rule base. Then, based on the associated inspection fields in the combined prohibited release rule set, a combined verification object is constructed from the basic single-item verification results. The combined verification object undergoes a verifiability check, generating either a verifiable object result or a result awaiting review. Specific details include: Based on product identification, process identification, customer identification, and current release application status, extract a set of combined prohibited release rules from the enterprise's quality inspection rule library; Based on the set of combined prohibition rules, the associated verification fields are determined from the basic individual verification results, and a combined verification object is constructed.

[0043] It should be noted that the enterprise quality inspection rule base includes product rule area, process rule area, customer rule area, field rule area, combined prohibition rule area, rule version area, rule priority area and status processing area.

[0044] The product rules area is used to record the correspondence between product identifiers and the scope of application of the rules; The process rule area is used to record the correspondence between process identifiers and the scope of application of the rules; The customer rules area is used to record the correspondence between customer identifiers and customer-specific inspection requirements; The field rules area is used to record individual inspection fields, field tolerance requirements, field unit results, and field source requirements; The combined disallow rule area is used to record the combined disallow relationships between multiple individual test fields; The rule version area is used to record the rule's effective time, rule expiration time, and applicable version. The rule priority area is used to record the priority order among rules from different sources; The status processing area is used to record the status processing results corresponding to the rule being hit.

[0045] Furthermore, each combined prohibition rule in the combined prohibition rule set includes at least the rule identifier, applicable product identifier, applicable process identifier, applicable customer identifier, applicable release application status, associated inspection field, combined rule type, rule hit condition, status processing result, rule priority result, and rule version applicable result; It should be noted that the combined prohibition rules are not stored solely as natural language rules, but rather in a structured manner according to rule templates. These rule templates are used to convert enterprise quality agreements, internal control inspection requirements, and customer-specific release requirements into automatically executable field combination judgment structures. Combined prohibition rules represent the combined release control relationship between multiple individual inspection fields. This combined release control relationship includes prohibition release conditions and pending review conditions. When a combined prohibition rule is hit, it does not always directly generate a prohibition release status. Instead, it generates a prohibition release result, a pending review status result, or a pending confirmation prompt result based on the corresponding status processing result. The prohibition in a combined prohibition rule refers to its being a combined control rule that needs to be automatically verified before release, rather than limiting all rule hits to prohibition release. The rule template should include at least the rule identifier, applicable product identifier, applicable process identifier, applicable customer identifier, applicable release application status, associated inspection fields, combined rule type, field role result, comparison method result, threshold source result, threshold version result, missing data handling result, signature requirement result, data source requirement result, rule hit condition, status handling result, rule priority result, and rule version applicability result. The field role results are used to determine the execution position of the correlation test field in the combined no-fly rule. For field difference rules, the field role results include the baseline field and the compared field; For field proportion rules, the field role results include the numerator field and the denominator field; for field order rules, the field role results include the preceding field and the following field. For field mutual exclusion rules, the field role results include the first mutually exclusive field and the second mutually exclusive field; For field dependency rules, the field role results include the triggering field and the dependent field; for defect location association rules, the field role results include the defect level field, the defect location field, and the functional area field. The comparison results are used to determine the execution method of the combined no-fire rules, including difference comparison, proportion range comparison, order comparison, mutual exclusion co-occurrence comparison, dependent existence comparison, and region fall-in comparison; The threshold source results are used to distinguish whether the rule's hit condition comes from customer quality agreements, corporate internal control standards, historical approval rules, or exception handling rules. The threshold version result is used to determine whether the rule hit condition applies to the current production time, inspection time, or release application time; The missing handling results are used to specify how to handle situations where related inspection fields are missing, units cannot be converted, signature confirmations are missing, field tolerance requirements are not applicable, or rule versions are not applicable.

[0046] Furthermore, when constructing a combined verification object, the combined prohibition rule as a whole is not directly used as a judgment condition. Instead, based on the field role results, the standardized single-item inspection fields in the basic single-item verification results are mapped to rule execution fields. Each rule execution field is then bound with the single-item inspection result, field unit result, unit conversion completion result, data source result, signature confirmation result, field tolerance requirement, field version applicability result, and single-item qualification result. The resulting combined verification object includes both rule-side and field-side information, enabling subsequent combined firework ban verification to clearly determine the data source, field role, comparison method, and rule version on which it is based.

[0047] When the same set of associated verification fields are referenced by multiple combined prohibition rules at the same time, multiple combined verification objects are constructed separately. Each combined verification object retains the corresponding rule identifier, field role result, comparison method result, status processing result, and rule priority result. Multiple rules are not merged into a single judgment result. This process can prevent overlapping between different customer rules, different rule versions, or different status processing results.

[0048] The rule identifier is used to uniquely identify a combined no-fire rule; The associated test field is used to represent the individual test fields that need to be jointly judged in this combined no-fly rule; The combination rule type indicates whether the combination of prohibition rules belongs to field difference rules, field ratio rules, field order rules, field mutual exclusion rules, field dependency rules, or defect location association rules; The rule hit condition is used to indicate the specific conditions under which the combined ban rules are triggered; The status processing result is used to indicate whether the current release application status will be corrected to a prohibited release status, a pending review status, or a pending confirmation status after the rule is hit; The rule priority result is used to indicate the processing priority of the combined ban rule when multiple rules are hit simultaneously.

[0049] It should be noted that when extracting the set of combined prohibited release rules from the enterprise's quality inspection rule library, firstly, candidate combined prohibited release rules corresponding to the product to be released are extracted based on the product identifier. Then, candidate combined prohibited release rules that are not applicable to the current process are eliminated based on the process identifier. Next, customer-specific rules and enterprise internal control rules applicable to the current customer are retained based on the customer identifier. Finally, combined prohibited release rules applicable to the first release, release after rework, release after re-inspection, or release after abnormal handling are retained based on the current release application status.

[0050] If the rule version of the same combination of prohibition rules does not meet the production time, inspection time, or release application time of the current batch, then the combination of prohibition rules will not be included in the combination prohibition rule set, but a rule version inapplicable result will be generated.

[0051] Furthermore, the logic for determining the associated test field is as follows: read the associated test field in each combined prohibition rule, and find the corresponding standardized single test field in the basic single verification results.

[0052] If all the associated verification fields required by the combined prohibition rule exist, and the individual pass results of each associated verification field are all pass, then these associated verification fields are constructed into a verifiable object result. If any of the associated verification fields required by the combined no-release rule are missing, there are results of fields to be reviewed, or there are results of conflicting field sources, then the combined no-release rule is constructed as a combined object to be reviewed. If the individual pass result of any of the associated inspection fields required by the combined no-release rule is unqualified, then the field can trigger the status correction through the individual tolerance check, and the combined no-release rule can be recorded as the basis for the associated no-release rule, but it will no longer be included in the combined deviation judgment as a result of a normal verifiable object.

[0053] Furthermore, the combined verification objects include combined object identifier, product identifier, batch identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, current release application status, combined prohibition rules, associated inspection fields, individual inspection results, field tolerance requirements, individual qualified results, individual boundary proximity results, data source results, signature confirmation results, rule hit conditions, status processing results, rule priority results, and rule version applicability results.

[0054] A composite object identifier is used to uniquely identify a combination of fields that needs to be verified.

[0055] Each combined verification object corresponds to a combined prohibition rule. If the same set of associated verification fields is referenced by multiple combined prohibition rules at the same time, multiple combined verification objects are constructed separately to avoid overlapping between different rules.

[0056] It should be noted that after the combined verification object is constructed, a verifiability check still needs to be performed.

[0057] Verifiability checks include field completeness checks, data source priority checks, field version checks, signature confirmation checks, and rule version checks.

[0058] The field completeness check is used to determine whether all the associated verification fields required for the combined no-fly rule exist; The data source priority check is used to determine whether the data source of the associated test field meets the requirements of the enterprise's quality inspection rule base. Field version checks are used to determine whether the field tolerance requirements upon which the associated inspection field is based are applicable to the current batch; The signature confirmation check is used to determine whether the associated verification field has been confirmed by the responsible person. Rule version checks are used to determine whether combined prohibition rules apply to the current batch of products awaiting release.

[0059] Furthermore, the threshold logic for verifiability checks is as follows: when all associated inspection fields in the combined verification object exist, the data sources all meet the data source priority results, the field tolerance requirements are applicable to the current product and the current process, the signature confirmation results all meet the requirements of the enterprise quality inspection rule base, and the rule version of the combined prohibition rule is applicable, a verifiable object result is generated. If any of the above conditions are not met, the result of the object to be reviewed is generated.

[0060] The result of the object to be reviewed is not directly determined as allowing release, but is used as the basis for review of the release status verification result in step S3.

[0061] For example, a certain combination of exclusion rules requires reading the first assembly gap and the second assembly gap simultaneously.

[0062] If both the first assembly gap and the second assembly gap exist, and both are data collected from the testing equipment of the current batch, and the field tolerance requirements corresponding to both are applicable to the current process and the current customer, then a verifiable object result is constructed.

[0063] If the second assembly gap lacks a signature confirmation result, or if the second assembly gap comes from historical batch data, then construct a combined object to be reviewed.

[0064] Through this step, the combined prohibition rules in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base are converted into combined verification objects that can be automatically verified.

[0065] This step builds upon the basic single-item verification results generated in step S1 and provides clear rule objects, field objects, and status processing basis for step S3 to perform combined ban verification.

[0066] In step S3, if the basic single-item verification result meets the single-item qualification condition and the combined verification object has a verifiable object result, the combined verification object is subjected to combined air release prohibition verification according to the rule hit condition in the combined air release prohibition rule set, generating a combined air release prohibition result. The current release application status is then corrected based on the combined air release prohibition result, the result of the object to be reviewed, and the status processing result, generating a release status verification result, the specific content of which includes: If the basic single-item verification result meets the single-item qualification condition and the combined verification object has verifiable object results, perform combined prohibition verification on the combined verification object and generate combined prohibition result; Based on the combined results of the ban, the results of the objects to be reviewed, and the status processing results, the current release application status is corrected, and a release status verification result is generated.

[0067] It should be noted that the combined release prohibition verification is used to determine whether the combination of multiple individual inspection fields, although each meets the field tolerance requirements, has triggered the prohibition release conditions or pending review conditions in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base.

[0068] The combined tolerance verification does not replace the individual tolerance verification, but is performed after the individual tolerance verification.

[0069] Only when the individual pass result of the relevant individual test field is pass, is it necessary to further determine the combination relationship between the fields; If a single inspection field is already unqualified, it can be directly processed as either prohibited from release or pending review based on the single tolerance verification result.

[0070] Furthermore, when the combined rule type is a field difference rule, the benchmark field and the field being compared are determined based on the field role results, and the corresponding individual test results are read. If the field difference rule involves two related test fields, the absolute difference between the two individual test results is used as the difference relationship; If the field difference rule involves more than three related test fields, the generation method of the difference relationship is determined by the rule hit condition. The generation method is the difference between the maximum and minimum values ​​of the individual test results of each related test field, or the maximum value of the difference between the benchmark field and each compared field. The generated difference relationship is compared with the allowable difference threshold result. If the difference relationship is greater than the allowable difference threshold result, it is determined that the field difference rule is hit. If the difference is not greater than the allowed difference threshold, then the field difference rule is determined to be unmatched. If any associated test field lacks a single test result, unit conversion completion result, or signature confirmation result, then the difference comparison will not be performed, and the combined verification object will be converted into a result pending review.

[0071] For example, both the first assembly gap and the second assembly gap are within their respective tolerance ranges, but the enterprise's quality inspection rule base stipulates that the difference between the two must not exceed the corresponding allowable difference threshold result.

[0072] When the calculated difference between the two is greater than the allowable difference threshold, even if the individual pass results of the first assembly gap and the second assembly gap are both passable, the field difference rule is determined to be hit.

[0073] Furthermore, when the combination rule type is a field ratio rule, the numerator and denominator fields in the combination verification object are read, and the ratio allowable range result is determined according to the rule hit condition.

[0074] If the individual test result corresponding to the denominator field is zero or empty, a proportional pending review status result will be generated. If the proportional relationship can be calculated, and the proportional relationship is not within the proportional allowable range, or falls within the proportional prohibition range set by the enterprise's quality inspection rule library, then the field proportional rule is determined to be hit. If the ratio relationship is within the allowed ratio range and does not fall into the prohibited ratio range, then the field ratio rule is determined to be unmatched.

[0075] Furthermore, when the combined rule type is a field order rule, the order requirements between multiple associated test fields are read according to the rule hit conditions.

[0076] If the individual test results of the associated test field do not meet the specified order of size, order of grade, or order of process, then the field order rule is determined to be hit. If the order requirement is met, then the field order rule is determined to have been missed.

[0077] Furthermore, when the combination rule type is a field mutual exclusion rule, it determines whether the field status of two or more associated test fields occurs simultaneously.

[0078] If the enterprise's quality inspection rule base stipulates that two fields cannot appear at the same time, but the current combined verification object has both fields in the same state, then the field mutual exclusion rule is determined to be hit. If they do not both occur simultaneously, the field mutual exclusion rule is determined to have failed.

[0079] Furthermore, when the combination rule type is a field dependency rule, it is first determined whether the triggering field meets the triggering condition; When the triggering field meets the triggering conditions, it is then determined whether the dependent field exists, is valid, has been signed and confirmed, and meets the corresponding field tolerance requirements.

[0080] If the triggering field meets the triggering conditions but the dependent field is missing, invalid, unsigned, or does not meet the requirements, then the field dependency rule is determined to be hit. If the triggering field does not meet the triggering condition, or the dependent field meets the requirements, then the field dependency rule is determined to be unmet.

[0081] Furthermore, when the combined rule type is a defect location association rule, the defect level field, defect location field, and functional area field are read; The functional area field corresponds to the functional area of ​​influence, which is represented by the functional area number, two-dimensional coordinate range, three-dimensional coordinate range, component partition number, or preset functional area mapping table. The defect location field corresponds to the functional area of ​​influence by matching the area number, judging the coordinates, or matching the functional area mapping table. If the defect level result corresponding to the defect level field is allowed individually, but the defect location result falls into the functional impact area, and the rule hit condition stipulates that the combination relationship belongs to the situation of prohibition or pending review, then the defect location association rule is determined to be hit; If the defect location result does not fall within the functional influence area, or if the combination of the defect level result and the defect location result does not trigger the rule hit condition, then the defect location association rule is determined to be unhit.

[0082] It should be noted that the combined ban result is generated based on both the rule hit result and the state processing result.

[0083] The rule hit result indicates whether a certain combination of ban rules has been triggered; The status processing result is used to indicate what status the current release application status should be corrected to after the rule is triggered.

[0084] If the rule hit result is "hit" and the status processing result is "prohibit and allow", then a "prohibit and allow" result will be generated. If the rule hit result is "hit" and the status processing result is "pending review", then generate a status result pending review. If the rule hit result is not hit, the combined verification object will not generate a prohibition release result or a pending review status result.

[0085] Furthermore, when multiple combined verification objects generate different status results simultaneously, the final release status verification result is determined according to the status priority rule.

[0086] Furthermore, the combined ban verification is performed based on the field role results and the comparison method results.

[0087] When the comparison method is a difference comparison, the individual test results of the benchmark field and the compared field are read. If the units of the two are consistent and both have individual qualified results, the field difference relationship is generated and the field difference relationship is compared with the allowable difference threshold result in the rule hit condition. If the difference between fields exceeds the allowed difference threshold, then a rule hit result is generated.

[0088] When the comparison method result is a ratio interval comparison, read the individual test results of the numerator and denominator fields. If the denominator field exists and is not in an uncalcifiable state, generate the field ratio relationship and determine whether the field ratio relationship falls within the ratio allowable interval result. If the field ratio does not fall within the ratio allowable range or falls within the ratio prohibition range, then a rule hit result is generated.

[0089] When the comparison method is a sequential comparison, read the individual inspection results, grade results, or process sequence results of the preceding and following fields, and determine whether they meet the sequence requirements in the rule hit conditions; if the sequence requirements are not met, generate the rule hit result.

[0090] When the comparison method result is a mutual exclusion co-occurrence comparison, the field status results of the first mutual exclusion field and the second mutual exclusion field are read; if both appear at the same time and the enterprise quality inspection rule base stipulates that they cannot co-occur, then a rule hit result is generated.

[0091] When the comparison method results in a dependency comparison, first determine whether the triggering field meets the triggering condition; if the triggering field meets the triggering condition, then determine whether the dependent field exists, is valid, has been signed and confirmed, and meets the corresponding field tolerance requirements. If the dependent field is missing, invalid, unsigned, or does not meet the tolerance requirements of the corresponding field, a rule hit result will be generated.

[0092] When the comparison method result is that the region falls within the comparison, read the defect level field, defect location field, and functional area field; If the defect level result is allowed individually, but the defect location result falls into the functional influence area corresponding to the functional area field, and the rule hit condition stipulates that the combination relationship belongs to the prohibited release or pending review situation, then a rule hit result is generated.

[0093] It should be noted that if any combination of verification objects has missing related verification fields, cannot convert units, has missing signature confirmation, does not apply field tolerance requirements, does not apply rule versions, or does not meet the data source priority results, then the combination of verification objects will not enter the approval judgment, but will generate a result of pending review. The results of the object to be reviewed are distinguished from the results of the status to be reviewed after the rule is hit: the results of the object to be reviewed indicate that the combined verification object does not meet the conditions for automatic verification, and the results of the status to be reviewed indicate that the combined prohibition rule has been hit and the status processing result is pending review.

[0094] The priority rule for status is: the "prohibited" status takes precedence over the "pending review" status, and the "pending review" status takes precedence over the "allowed" status. Customer-specific rules take precedence over standard company rules. Security performance association rules take precedence over ordinary appearance association rules; Rules for the current valid version take precedence over rules for previous versions.

[0095] If any combination of verification objects generates a denial of release result, the current release application status will be corrected to a denial of release status; If there is no result prohibiting release, but there is a result for an object pending review or a result for a status pending review, then the current release application status will be corrected to a status pending review. A release status is generated only when the basic single-item verification result meets the single-item qualification condition, all verifiable object results do not match the combined prohibition rule, and there are no object results to be reviewed.

[0096] Furthermore, this step also generates a release basis chain.

[0097] The release basis chain includes basic single-item verification basis, combined verification object basis, combined prohibition rule basis, rule hit basis, status correction basis, and review prompt basis.

[0098] The basic single-item verification basis is used to record the single-item inspection results, field tolerance requirements, and single-item pass results for each single-item inspection field; The combined verification object is based on the associated verification field used to record the combined firework ban verification; Combination ban rules are based on the combination ban rules used to record the invoked rules; The rule hit criteria are used to record whether a combination of ban rules is hit and the reason for the hit; The status correction basis is used to record the reasons why the current release application status is corrected to a prohibited release status, a pending review status, or a permitted release status. The review prompt is based on the fields, rules, or data sources that require manual review.

[0099] For example, if both the first assembly gap and the second assembly gap meet their respective field tolerance requirements, but the difference between them is greater than the allowable difference threshold, and the status processing result of the corresponding field difference rule is prohibited from release, then a combined prohibited release result is generated, and the current release application status is corrected to the prohibited release status.

[0100] If the difference between the two does not exceed the allowable difference threshold, but the second assembly gap lacks a signature confirmation result, then an allowable release status will not be generated, but a pending review status will be generated instead.

[0101] This step enables the identification of combined prohibition relationships between multiple fields, even when the existing individual tolerance verification has already determined that each individual inspection field is qualified. This solves the problem of incorrect release when an individual field is qualified but the combination does not meet the release requirements.

[0102] In step S4, based on the review feedback results corresponding to the release status verification results, the combined prohibition rule adaptation record is updated, and the updated combined prohibition rule adaptation record is written back to the enterprise quality inspection rule database. Specific content includes: Based on the manual review conclusions, customer acceptance feedback, historical release results, and anomaly handling conclusions corresponding to the release status verification results, the combined prohibition rule adaptation record is updated once, and the updated combined prohibition rule adaptation record is written back to the enterprise quality inspection rule library for subsequent combined prohibition verification of product batches awaiting release.

[0103] It should be noted that the combined prohibition rule adaptation record is used to record the adaptation status of combined prohibition rules under specific product identifiers, process identifiers, customer identifiers, and the current release application status.

[0104] The combined prohibition rule adaptation record is different from the company's official quality standards. It does not directly change the official rule text in the company's quality inspection rule library, but is used to assist in the priority calling of subsequent batches, confirmation prompts, and correction of the rule's scope of application.

[0105] Furthermore, the results of manual review include confirmation of prohibition of release, confirmation of pending review status, confirmation of allowance of release, and rule adaptation anomaly.

[0106] The confirmation of the prohibition of release result indicates that the prohibition of release status generated in step S3 has been manually reviewed and approved. The "Pending Review" status result indicates the pending review status generated in step S3 of the manual review and approval process. The confirmation of the release result indicates the release status generated by the manual review and approval step S3. An error in rule adaptation indicates that manual review found the combined prohibition rule called in step S3 to have an incorrect applicable product, applicable process, applicable customer, or applicable release application status.

[0107] Furthermore, customer acceptance feedback is used to indicate whether the customer acceptance results after product delivery support the release status verification results. Historical release results are used to indicate the status output and actual handling of similar product batches in historical release verification; The anomaly handling conclusion indicates whether the anomaly records related to this batch have been closed, whether a re-inspection is required, and whether they affect the release.

[0108] It should be noted that this step first checks the consistency between the release status verification result and the manual review conclusion.

[0109] Furthermore, when there are inconsistencies between the manual review conclusion, customer acceptance feedback, historical release results, and anomaly handling conclusion, conflict resolution of review feedback will be implemented; The review feedback conflict handling is executed according to the following logic: when the abnormality handling conclusion indicates that the abnormality has not been closed, needs to be re-inspected, or affects the release, an abnormality unclosed conflict result is generated, and the rule adaptation stability result of improving the corresponding combination of prohibition rules is suspended; When the customer's acceptance feedback does not support the current release status verification result, a customer feedback conflict result is generated, and the customer feedback conflict result is used as the basis for reducing the rule adaptation stability result or generating a rule prompt result to be confirmed. When the manual review conclusion is inconsistent with the historical release result and there is no customer acceptance feedback, the manual review conclusion shall be used as the basis for updating the stable result of this rule adaptation, and the historical release result shall be recorded as reference evidence. When multiple combined prohibition rules of the same priority generate conflicting status processing results for the same batch of products to be released, a rule conflict pending review status result is generated, and a release permission status is not directly generated in this batch. It should be noted that the review feedback conflict handling results include the results of conflicts caused by unclosed anomalies, the results of conflicts reported by customers, the results of conflicts in historical results, the results of rule conflicts pending review, and the results of conflict resolution. All the above results are written into the combined prohibition rule adaptation record, which is used to generate confirmation prompts or priority review prompts when extracting rules and constructing combined verification objects in the next batch; Updating the combined prohibition rule adaptation record does not change the field tolerance requirements, combined prohibition rule text, customer quality agreement, or status processing results in the formal rule area. The adaptation record area is only used to record the rule's call stability, review consistency, and conflict review status under specific product identifiers, process identifiers, customer identifiers, and the current release application status. When the stable results of rule adaptation reach or exceed the priority call threshold, the corresponding combination of ban rules will be called first in the next batch. When the stable result of rule adaptation is lower than or equal to the result of the threshold to be confirmed, the next batch will prioritize generating the result of the object to be reviewed, instead of directly generating the result of prohibition of release.

[0110] If the release status verification result is a prohibited release status, and the manual review conclusion is a confirmed prohibited release result, then a review consistency result will be generated. If the release status verification result is pending review, and the manual review conclusion is to confirm the pending review status result, then a review consistency result will be generated. If the release status verification result is "allowed for release" and the manual review conclusion is "confirmed to allow release", then a consistent review result will be generated.

[0111] If the release status verification result is inconsistent with the manual review conclusion, a review inconsistency result is generated, and the combined verification objects, combined prohibition rules, associated inspection fields and status processing results that caused the inconsistency are recorded.

[0112] Furthermore, when a consistent verification result is obtained, the stability of rule adaptation for the corresponding combination of prohibition rules is improved under the current product identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, and current release application status.

[0113] The rule adaptation stability result is used to indicate the degree of stability of the combined no-fire rules under the same application conditions. The initial value, single update amplitude result, stable upper limit result, stable lower limit result, priority call threshold result, and pending confirmation threshold result of the rule adaptation stable result are all pre-configured by the enterprise quality inspection rule library according to product category, process category, and customer rule category; The stable results of rule adaptation are only used to determine how the combined air-restriction rules are invoked in the next batch, and do not directly modify the formal rule text, field tolerance requirements, or customer quality agreement of the combined air-restriction rules; If the review feedback supports the applicability of the combined ban rules, the current rule adaptation stability result will be increased by the single update magnitude result, and the increased rule adaptation stability result will not exceed the stability upper limit result; If the review feedback does not support the applicability of the combined ban rules, the current rule adaptation stability result will be reduced by the single update magnitude result, and the reduced rule adaptation stability result will not be lower than the stability lower limit result. When there is a conflict between different review feedback results, a review feedback conflict handling result is generated first, and the use of that combination of prohibition rules as the basis for direct prohibition of release in the next batch is suspended.

[0114] The update logic is as follows: if the current review supports the applicability of the combined ban rules, then the rule adaptation stability result will be updated in the stable direction; If this review does not support the applicability of the combined ban rules, the rule adaptation stability result will be updated towards the direction of pending confirmation.

[0115] Furthermore, the rule adaptation stability results are updated in a controlled manner according to the stability upper limit and stability lower limit results in the adaptation record area; The single update magnitude result is pre-configured by the enterprise quality inspection rule base according to product category, process category and customer rule category, which is used to limit the impact of a single review feedback on the stable result of rule adaptation.

[0116] When the conclusion of manual review, customer acceptance feedback, historical release results, or abnormal handling conclusions support the applicability of the combined prohibition rule, the current rule adaptation stability result is increased by the single update magnitude result; if the increased rule adaptation stability result exceeds the stability upper limit result, the stability upper limit result is used as the updated rule adaptation stability result.

[0117] When the conclusion of manual review, customer acceptance feedback, historical release results, or abnormal handling conclusions do not support the applicability of the combined ban rules, the current rule will be adapted to the stable results to reduce the magnitude of each update. If the stable result of rule adaptation after reduction is lower than the stable lower bound result, then the stable lower bound result shall be used as the stable result of rule adaptation after update.

[0118] It should be noted that the rule adaptation stability result is only used to determine the invocation method of the combined air restriction rule in the next batch, and does not directly modify the formal rule text, field tolerance requirements, or customer quality agreement of the combined air restriction rule. When the rule adaptation stability result reaches or exceeds the priority invocation threshold result, the combined air restriction rule will be preferentially invoked in the next batch and a combined verification object will be constructed. When the stable result of rule adaptation is lower than the priority call threshold result but higher than the pending confirmation threshold result, the combined ban rule will still participate in the combined ban verification, but will be marked as a rule requiring attention in the release basis chain; When the stable result of rule adaptation is lower than or equal to the result of the threshold to be confirmed, the combined prohibition rule will not be directly used as the basis for prohibition in the next batch, but will be given priority in generating the result of the object to be reviewed.

[0119] Through the above controlled update method, the review feedback results will not directly change the company's official quality standards, but will form an adaptation record for the next batch of call sorting and review prompts, so that the call status of the combined ban rules in consecutive batches has a traceable adjustment basis.

[0120] The update range is determined by the single update range result in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base. The single update range result is used to limit the impact of a single review feedback on the stable result of rule adaptation and avoid a single abnormal feedback directly changing the subsequent rule calling logic.

[0121] Furthermore, the threshold judgment logic for rule adaptation stability results is as follows: when the rule adaptation stability result reaches or exceeds the priority call threshold result, the next batch, under the same product identifier, process identifier, customer identifier and current release application status, will prioritize calling the combined prohibition rule and constructing a combined verification object; When the stable result of rule adaptation is lower than the priority call threshold result but higher than the pending confirmation threshold result, the combined ban rule can still participate in the combined ban verification, but it needs to be marked as a rule that needs attention in the release basis chain; When the stable result of rule adaptation is lower than or equal to the result of the pending confirmation threshold, the combined prohibition rule is marked as a rule pending confirmation. In the next batch, it will not be directly used as the basis for prohibition of release, but will be given priority to generate the result of the object to be reviewed.

[0122] Furthermore, when inconsistent review results are caused by the same field name but different applicable procedures, a field application scope correction result is generated; When the inconsistency in the review results is caused by an error in the scope of application of the customer rules, a correction result for the scope of application of the customer rules will be generated. When the inconsistency in the review results is caused by the inapplicability of the rule version, a rule version correction result is generated; When the inconsistency in the review results is caused by the omission of the associated test field, candidate results for the associated field are generated.

[0123] The above corrections are all written into the combined no-fire rule adaptation record and used as the screening basis when constructing the next batch of combined verification objects.

[0124] For example, if a certain field difference rule is manually reviewed and confirmed as the basis for prohibiting release in multiple batches of the same customer, the rule adaptation stability result of that field difference rule will improve successively.

[0125] Once the stable results of rule adaptation reach the priority call threshold, subsequent batches of products awaiting release from the same customer and with the same process will prioritize building the combined verification object corresponding to the rule that differs from that field.

[0126] Conversely, if a rule associated with a defect location is repeatedly deemed by manual review to be inapplicable to the current customer, the rule will be marked as applicable to the customer and pending confirmation. When the next batch enters the combined release prohibition verification, the result of the object pending review will be generated first, instead of directly generating a release prohibition status.

[0127] Furthermore, the rule iteration results are output, including the verification consistency results, verification inconsistency results, rule adaptation stability results, field application scope correction results, customer application scope correction results, rule version correction results, related field candidate results, and next batch call prompt results.

[0128] The next batch call prompt result is used to guide step S2 in extracting the combined ban rule set and constructing the combined verification object in the next batch.

[0129] Through this step, the release status verification result generated in step S3 is fed back to the combined prohibition rule adaptation record in the enterprise's quality inspection rule library, enabling subsequent batches of products awaiting release to more accurately extract the combined prohibition rule set, more accurately construct the combined verification object, and reduce misjudgments caused by unclear rule application scope.

[0130] This step does not directly modify the company's official quality standards, but rather creates a controlled rule adaptation record update process, thereby balancing automated verification capabilities with the stability of the company's quality management rules.

[0131] The above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, by software, hardware, firmware, or any other combination thereof. When implemented using software, the above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, in the form of a computer program product.

[0132] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the modules and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and inventive constraints of the technical solution. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered beyond the scope of this application.

[0133] In addition, the functional modules in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated into one processing module, or each module can exist physically separately, or two or more modules can be integrated into one module.

[0134] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any variations or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application. Therefore, the scope of protection of this application should be determined by the scope of the claims.

[0135] In conclusion, the above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. An automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base, characterized in that, Includes steps; Step S1: Obtain the product identifier, batch identifier, process identifier, customer identifier, current release application status, structured quality inspection history data, data collected by testing equipment, data manually reviewed and entered, individual inspection fields, individual inspection results and field tolerance requirements for the batch of products to be released; perform field standardization, source confirmation, unit consistency processing and individual conformity verification on the individual inspection fields, and generate basic individual verification results. Step S2: Based on the product identifier, process identifier, customer identifier and current release application status, extract the combined prohibited release rule set from the enterprise quality inspection rule base, and construct the combined verification object from the basic single verification results based on the associated inspection fields in the combined prohibited release rule set. Perform a verifiability check on the combined verification object and generate a verifiable object result or an object result to be reviewed. Step S3: If the basic single-item verification result meets the single-item qualification condition and the combined verification object has verifiable object results, perform combined air-free verification on the combined verification object according to the rule hit condition in the combined air-free rule set, generate combined air-free result, and correct the current release application status according to the combined air-free result, the object to be reviewed result and the status processing result, and generate release status verification result. Step S4: Update the combined prohibition rule adaptation record according to the review feedback result corresponding to the release status verification result, and write the updated combined prohibition rule adaptation record back to the enterprise quality inspection rule library.

2. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 1, characterized in that, Structured quality inspection history data, data collected by testing equipment, and data manually reviewed and entered are collected according to the same product identifier, the same batch identifier, and the same process identifier to form a basic quality inspection data package. Based on the basic quality inspection data package, field standardization, source confirmation, unit consistency processing, and individual qualification verification are performed on individual inspection fields and individual inspection results.

3. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 2, characterized in that, Field standardization involves mapping the form field names in the structured quality inspection history data, the measurement point names in the data collected by the testing equipment, and the input field names in the manually reviewed and entered data to the standard field names in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base, thereby generating standardized single-item inspection fields. If there are multiple data sources for the same single inspection field, the final data source to be used shall be determined according to the data source priority result in the enterprise quality inspection rule base; Unit consistency processing involves converting individual inspection results into units consistent with the field tolerance requirements based on the field unit results in the field tolerance requirements. When a single test result exists and the field tolerance requirement has both a lower limit result and an upper limit result, determine whether the single test result is located between the lower limit result and the upper limit result. If the boundary includes the result, it means that the boundary is included. If the result of a single test is equal to the lower limit result or the upper limit result of the field, it is still judged as a single test qualified. If the boundary includes the result, it means that the boundary is not included. When the single inspection result is equal to the lower limit result or the upper limit result of the field, it is determined to be a single item pending review result or a single item unqualified result according to the boundary handling rules in the field tolerance requirements.

4. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 1, characterized in that, The field role result is used to determine the execution position of the correlation test field in the combined no-access rule; For field difference rules, the field role results include the benchmark field and the field being compared; For field proportion rules, the field role results include the numerator field and the denominator field; For field order rules, the field role results include the preceding field and the following field; For field mutual exclusion rules, the field role results include the first mutually exclusive field and the second mutually exclusive field; for field dependency rules, the field role results include the triggering field and the dependent field. For defect location association rules, the field role results include the defect level field, the defect location field, and the functional area field; The comparison method results are used to distinguish between difference comparison, proportion range comparison, order comparison, mutually exclusive co-occurrence comparison, dependent existence comparison, and region fall-in comparison; The missing data handling result is used to indicate that when the associated inspection field is missing, the unit cannot be converted, the signature confirmation is missing, the field tolerance requirement is not applicable, or the rule version is not applicable, the corresponding combined verification object will be converted into a pending review object result instead of entering the allow release judgment.

5. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 4, characterized in that, When extracting a set of combined prohibited release rules from the enterprise's quality inspection rule library, candidate combined prohibited release rules corresponding to the product to be released are extracted based on the product identifier. Candidate combined prohibited release rules that are not applicable to the current process are eliminated based on the process identifier. Customer-specific rules and enterprise internal control rules applicable to the current customer are retained based on the customer identifier. Finally, combined prohibited release rules applicable to the first release, release after rework, release after re-inspection, or release after abnormal handling are retained based on the current release application status. After the combined verification object is constructed, a verifiability check is performed; When all associated inspection fields in the combined verification object exist, the data sources meet the data source priority results, the field tolerance requirements are applicable to the current product and the current process, the signature confirmation result meets the requirements of the enterprise quality inspection rule base, and the rule version of the combined prohibition rule is applicable, a verifiable object result is generated. When any of the following situations occur: missing associated inspection fields, data source does not meet data source priority results, field tolerance requirements are not applicable to the current product or process, signature confirmation results are missing, or the rule version of the combined prohibition rule is not applicable, generate the result of the object to be reviewed and record the fields, data sources, field tolerance requirements, or combined prohibition rules that caused the result of the object to be reviewed.

6. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 1, characterized in that, Combined release prohibition verification is used to determine whether the combination of multiple individual inspection fields, although each meets the field tolerance requirements, has triggered the release prohibition condition or the condition pending review in the enterprise's quality inspection rule base. The combined tolerance verification does not replace the individual tolerance verification, but is performed after the individual tolerance verification. Only when the individual qualification result of the relevant individual inspection field is qualified will the combination relationship between the fields be further judged.

7. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 6, characterized in that, When the combination rule type is a field difference rule, the benchmark field and the field being compared are determined based on the field role results. If the field difference rule involves two related test fields, the absolute difference between the two individual test results is used as the difference relationship; If the field difference rule involves more than three related test fields, the difference relationship is determined by the rule hit condition, which is the difference between the maximum and minimum values ​​of the individual test results of each related test field, or the maximum value of the difference between the benchmark field and each compared field. The difference relationship is compared with the allowable difference threshold. If the difference relationship is greater than the allowable difference threshold, the field difference rule is determined to be hit. When the combined rule type is a defect location association rule, the defect level field, defect location field, and functional area field are read. The functional area of ​​influence corresponding to the functional area field is represented by the functional area number, two-dimensional coordinate range, three-dimensional coordinate range, component partition number, or preset functional area mapping table. If the defect level result corresponding to the defect level field is allowed individually, but the defect location result corresponding to the defect location field falls into the functional area of ​​influence through area number matching, coordinate fall judgment, or functional area mapping table matching, and the rule hit condition stipulates that the combined relationship belongs to the prohibited release or pending review situation, then the defect location association rule is determined to be hit. When the combined rule type is field order rule, the order requirements between multiple associated test fields are read according to the rule hit conditions. If the individual test results of the associated test fields do not meet the specified size order, grade order or process sequence order, the field order rule is determined to be hit. When the combined rule type is a field mutual exclusion rule, read the field status results of the first mutual exclusion field and the second mutual exclusion field; if the first mutual exclusion field and the second mutual exclusion field appear at the same time and the combined ban rule stipulates that they cannot co-occur, then it is determined that the field mutual exclusion rule has been hit; When the combined rule type is a field dependency rule, first determine whether the triggering field meets the triggering condition; If the triggering field meets the triggering condition, then it is determined whether the dependent field exists, is valid, has been signed and confirmed, and meets the corresponding field tolerance requirements; if the dependent field is missing, invalid, not signed and confirmed, or does not meet the corresponding field tolerance requirements, then it is determined that the field dependency rule has been hit. When the combined rule type is a defect location association rule, read the defect level field, defect location field, and functional area field; If the defect level result corresponding to the defect level field is allowed individually, but the defect location result corresponding to the defect location field falls into the functional influence area corresponding to the functional area field, and the rule hit condition stipulates that the combination relationship belongs to the prohibited release or pending review situation, then the defect location association rule is determined to be hit.

8. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 7, characterized in that, When multiple combined verification objects generate different status results at the same time, the final release status verification result is determined according to the status priority rule. The priority rules for status are as follows: the prohibited release status takes precedence over the pending review status, the pending review status takes precedence over the permitted release status, customer-specific rules take precedence over enterprise-standard rules, security performance-related rules take precedence over ordinary appearance-related rules, and the current valid version rules take precedence over historical version rules. If any combination of verification objects generates a denial of release result, the current release application status will be corrected to a denial of release status; If there is no result prohibiting release but there is a result for an object pending review or a result for a pending review status, the current release application status will be corrected to pending review status; A release status is generated only when the basic single-item verification result meets the single-item qualification condition, all verifiable object results do not match the combined prohibition rule, and there are no object results to be reviewed.

9. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 1, characterized in that, The review and feedback results include manual review conclusions, customer acceptance feedback, historical release results, and conclusions on handling anomalies; The combined prohibition rule adaptation record is used to record the adaptation status of combined prohibition rules for specific product identifiers, process identifiers, customer identifiers, and the current release application status; First, the consistency between the release status verification result and the manual review conclusion is judged. If they are consistent, a review consistency result is generated. If they are inconsistent, a review inconsistency result is generated and the combined verification objects, combined prohibition rules, associated inspection fields and status processing results that caused the inconsistency are recorded.

10. The automatic verification method for product release status based on an enterprise quality inspection rule base according to claim 9, characterized in that, The combined no-play rule adaptation record includes rule adaptation stability results, single update magnitude results, stability upper limit results, stability lower limit results, priority call threshold results, unconfirmed threshold results, and next batch call prompt results; If the review feedback supports the applicability of the combined ban rules, the rule adaptation stability result of the corresponding combined ban rules will be increased according to the single update magnitude result, and the increased rule adaptation stability result will not exceed the stability upper limit result. If the review feedback does not support the applicability of the combined ban rules, the rule adaptation stability result of the corresponding combined ban rules shall be reduced according to the single update magnitude result, and the reduced rule adaptation stability result shall not be lower than the stability lower limit result. When the stable result of rule adaptation reaches or exceeds the priority call threshold, a priority call prompt result is generated; When the stable result of rule adaptation is lower than the priority call threshold result but higher than the pending confirmation threshold result, a rule prompt result that needs attention is generated. When the stable result of rule adaptation is lower than or equal to the result of the threshold to be confirmed, a result of rule to be confirmed is generated, and the result of object to be reviewed is generated first in the next batch instead of directly generating a result of prohibition of release.

Images