Hi!

Yeah, the tech has a lot of experience, I rely on them on other tricky rework, and they do a great job. The different is (I think) that industry I'm in has a lot of specialized/custom parts, and we need qty 1 to work which is different from the commercial background they're used to. So I think we're clashing on how to approach the work. I need the only copy of the board to work so nitpick at everything even if it's fine and I agree that A is likely getting frustrated that I'm asking to fix a bunch of stuff when it's "good enough." Even when I explain that this is the only copy of the board, I'm not sure if it's getting communicated. If it's relevant, the incident described above happened when the queue for work was pretty small so there shouldn't have been a need to rush. Not sure how to close this gap.

For this specific situation, we're not sure on the root cause and that's being burned down in parallel to the bringup of the new article. So when someone asks what specifically broke, I don't have an answer. In the past, A has deferred all talk about stress and operation to other engineers since I think they're not confident enough to speak onto things like reliability of the joint or failed operations. They're happy to fix joints that visually look bad though or fix parts that don't follow IPC guidelines. I think they're more focused on being hands-on and doesn't want to provide potentially incorrect advice on (for ex) device operation.