Resources
Egocentric video rejection reasons and preflight QA
Find capture failures before scaling, document rejected segments and keep the acceptance policy tied to the intended task.
Published 2026-10-27 · 6 min read
| Finding | Evidence and possible next step |
|---|---|
| Missing action or view | Segment review; clarify scope or recapture |
| Geometry or timing gap | Applicable logs and calibration; reprocess only if supported |
| Corrupt or missing file | Decode/checksum findings; retransmit or recapture |
| Unresolved permissions | Hold affected material for the appropriate review |
Check a representative recording before committing to a long collection. A file that plays is not necessarily the agreed dataset product: a task may be hidden, a view missing, the timeline broken or permissions unresolved.
The checks below are proposed review categories. They are not a universal Fiund rejection policy or a guarantee of acceptance. Agree the actual criteria, severity levels and correction responsibilities for each project.
Check task coverage and source integrity
Review whether the required action, objects and transitions are visible in the relevant view. Watch realistic movement and difficult phases rather than just a highlight clip. Record a reason when an episode misses the task or coverage target.
Confirm files decode, durations reconcile and original sources are present. Detect duplicate exports and repeated episodes. Track checksums and file IDs through transfer so a review decision refers to the delivered version.
Inspect capture quality in context
Look for clipping exposure, blur, lens obstruction, unstable mounts and unintended edits or enhancement. Describe where defects occur and whether they affect the task. A generic sharpness score does not by itself decide usefulness.
For synchronized or depth products, add the agreed geometry, timing and depth-validity checks. A scene that looks attractive may still lack usable camera alignment. Record the tested configuration and measured results rather than claiming that camera model alone proves quality.
Separate recoverable issues from recapture
A missing manifest field may be repairable from reliable source records; an event never recorded may require recapture. A timestamp problem might be correctable only if supporting data exists. Do not fabricate missing measurements to pass a check.
Define whether corrected material is reviewed again, how version IDs change and whether the original rejection remains in the audit record. Establish partial-acceptance rules when only one segment or stream fails.
Close the pilot before scaling
Use a review log with session ID, segment boundaries, finding, evidence, severity, decision, owner and resolution. Keep rights or permission holds distinct from technical defects, because a technically valid file may still be unavailable to license.
Obtain a written pilot decision and remaining conditions before increasing collection volume. Reconcile accepted totals with the pay unit. An assessment or a successful upload is not an accepted delivery or a promise of payment.
Frequently asked questions
Does every blurry frame require rejection?
Use the task-specific acceptance rule. Log the defect and its effect rather than applying an unsupported universal threshold.
Can I fill missing calibration fields with typical camera values?
No. Mark unavailable values and assess whether the intended product can be supported.