A two-meter drop claim needs a test record that identifies the device, setup and acceptance checks. Height alone does not explain the impact surface, number of drops, orientations or condition of the phone afterward.
Ask for a traceable setup
| Record item | Why it belongs in the review |
|---|---|
| Model and configuration | Connect the result to the device being offered |
| Height and release | Describe how the exposure was applied |
| Surface and orientations | Identify the impact conditions |
| Sample count and sequence | Distinguish one demonstration from the reported test program |
| Checks before and after | Define what passed and what was inspected |
Keep a video in its proper context
A video can illustrate an event, but review what it actually shows and whether its device and conditions match the offered unit. Ask for the accompanying record if details, inspection criteria or the full sequence are missing.
Do not convert a working display at the end of a clip into an assurance that every feature was checked. Identify which functions the report tested and any limitations it states.
Read the named method and conditions
The NASA listing for MIL-STD-810H describes environmental tailoring rather than a universal set of design or test specifications. A reference to the standard therefore still needs the relevant method, procedure and actual conditions.
IEC 60529 concerns enclosure protection classification. An ingress rating should not substitute for drop-test evidence or establish performance after an impact.
Turn evidence into a purchase question
Record whether the supplied evidence covers the proposed configuration and handling scenario. If it does not, request clarification before writing an acceptance requirement around a two-meter claim.
Ask Phonemax for model-specific test documentation. This article provides a review checklist; it does not certify a Phonemax model for a two-meter drop or recommend deliberately dropping a working phone.
发表评论
所有评论在发布前都会经过审核。
此站点受 hCaptcha 保护，并且 hCaptcha 隐私政策和服务条款适用。