I'm hoping one of the gurus out there can help me build an argument. We have a problem of passing a leaking parts that should have been caught in-house to the customer. I catch a lot of flack for the performance of the air decay machines but no one seems to want to listen to my complaints of the way the parts are handled. After a part rejects once, the inspectors run the part back through the air decay again, then again if it still rejects. It is only after rejecting 3 times that the part is actually scrapped. If it passes at any one of these opportunities, its passed on as a good part. Is there a formula that I can plug our numbers (GRR results?, # rejects?) into to demonstrate that by saturating the air decay with marginal product, we are allowing bad product to pass due to the repeatability of the equipment? Appreciate your help!