A Defect Pareto Chart for a Polishing Workshop

A workshop may remember the most frustrating polishing defect rather than the one consuming the most effort. A Pareto-style ranking organises recurring defect categories by count or cost so improvement work starts with evidence.

Use consistent categories

Define a manageable list such as residual haze, missed defects, trim residue and inspection-related rework. Record the location and job as well as the category. Avoid counting the same issue several times simply because several people noticed it.

Choose the ranking measure

Counts identify frequency; rework minutes identify labour burden. Both are useful, but they can produce different priorities. A rare severe defect may require immediate action even if it contributes little to the total count.

An illustrative dataset

Category	Cases	Rework minutes
Residue	12	60
Residual haze	6	150
Missed local defect	4	80

Residue leads by frequency, while haze leads by recorded rework time. The improvement decision should state which outcome matters.

Check the denominator

If one month contains more jobs or more detailed inspections, raw defect counts can rise without a worse process. Keep job count, job mix and inspection practice beside the chart.

Verify the chosen improvement

After changing a process, continue the same recording method and look for reduced recurrence without creating another defect. Do not assume the familiar 80/20 pattern must appear in every dataset.

The chart is a prioritisation tool. It identifies where to investigate; it does not prove the root cause or replace surface-specific judgement.

Related guides

• One-Step or Two-Stage Polishing Before Protection?
• Polishing Spot Repairs: Preserve a Defect Reference
• Why Finished Paint Waits: Find Delays between Polishing and Final Inspection

Ask NANOLAB about your surface and intended use. For application and care, use the current instructions for the exact product.