Upon completion of the investigation, it was noted that the customer¿s complaint of "the device was dull and could not perforate" was not verified.This perforator met the test method acceptance requirements; proper engagement and disengagement were achieved with every drill hole.There was no erratic or poor cutting action.The device history records for the perforator was reviewed and all test and inspections associated with the assembly process met specification requirements.Based on the results of this investigation, no further action is required.Trends will be monitored for this and similar complaints.At the present time, this complaint is closed.
|