A readable asset label in an enhanced thermal presentation is identification context, not proof that its lettering was resolved by the thermal detector. Keep the source of visible detail clear when annotating an inspection image.
Assign each claim to its evidence
| Report claim | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|
| Which asset was inspected | An identifiable record and corresponding context photograph |
| Where a thermal pattern appeared | The relevant original thermal output |
| How visible outlines were added | The documented presentation mode or editing record |
| Which observation supports action | The responsible reviewer’s interpretation and accepted method |
FLIR’s image-mode guidance distinguishes its thermal view from modes that add visual details. This illustrates why text and edges in a combined presentation can have a different source from the thermal information. It does not establish the same feature in a Phonemax phone.
Write annotations that do not overstate the image
Link a visible label photo to the correct inspection record, and preserve the thermal file used for review. If an annotation points to an observed region, make clear that the annotation was added for explanation. Do not treat a sharp printed outline in a combined view as proof of additional thermal resolution or a measured temperature boundary.
Where the source of a detail is uncertain, leave that point open and ask the app supplier or qualified reviewer. Avoid filling the gap with a reconstructed label or an assumed target identity.
The P20 Pro listing confirms integrated thermal imaging, not a verified method of reading asset text through thermal detection. No label-reading or enhancement comparison is reported here. Use the same-asset image-pair guide and confirm the supplied mode and output with Phonemax.
اترك تعليقًا
تخضع جميع التعليقات للإشراف قبل نشرها.
This site is protected by hCaptcha and the hCaptcha Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.