The inspection claim belongs to the conditions that support it.
I supported a lighting-stability statement after a ten-minute check in 2019. A later ninety-minute review found twelve of forty-eight assemblies outside the project's agreed intensity-stability criterion. The short check had answered a narrower question than the claim I endorsed. We held 240 preproduction units, delayed introduction and funded redesign and retesting. That is where this account begins: with a technical judgement I had approved before the evidence was sufficient for the intended use.
I am CTO of Nerqathi Inspection Lighting in Nashik. We make industrial LED lighting and control assemblies for machine-vision inspection. The company employed 180 people in March 2026 and recorded ₹76 crore revenue and ₹6.2 crore operating profit for FY 2025–26. I lead twenty-four engineering colleagues through three leads, with ₹6.1 crore annual expense and a separate ₹2.8 crore approved development-capital envelope. I report to CEO Renu Dalqvani. Quality head Vikas Pelnqeri reports separately to her, and product acceptance remains within the qualified process.
The cases also examine camera timing and the choice between developing a controller internally and qualifying a supplier module. A light that appeared steady to an observer produced banding in nine of thirty-two camera configurations. An internal development proposal looked attractive until we compared its time and capital with a supplier route carrying a higher recurring unit cost. These choices required the team to define the application, report remaining limits and distinguish a forecast from an achieved commercial result.
The longer run exposed a limit the short check missed
Twelve of forty-eight assemblies failed the agreed ninety-minute stability criterion. A ten-week, ₹46 lakh correction left forty-five passing the same defined review and three still held for further work.
Visible steadiness did not establish camera compatibility
Nine of thirty-two camera configurations showed banding. After an eight-week, ₹58 lakh programme, twenty-seven met the defined image criterion and five remained outside the qualified offer.
A supplier route traded development effort for recurring cost
The internal proposal required ₹2.8 crore and twelve months. The approved supplier-qualification route used ₹1.1 crore over four months, with a quoted ₹1,600 extra per unit at a forecast 1,200 units a year.
Current focus
I am making application conditions and commercial alternatives explicit before a technical result becomes a product claim. That means giving quality colleagues space to hold an unresolved configuration and giving the board a clear account of what an external module changes in cost and dependence. I want engineers to see a bounded result as useful evidence, not as a failure to produce the broadest possible launch statement.
Conversations I welcome
I would consider a technology-leadership mandate or a first compatible outside board contribution in industrial product development. I have no statutory service or equity, and my governance preparation remains unfinished. Twenty-three proposed annual days would require consent and review against the actual duties.
The leadership record
Trusted with consequential decisions.
Formation
Bachelor of Engineering in ElectronicsTelqvashi Engineering College · 1993
Bharat put the higher recurring unit cost beside the smaller supplier programme. He asked us to choose the full alternative, rather than describe the lower initial figure as an automatic saving.
Renu DalqvaniChief Executive Officer, Nerqathi Inspection LightingThe full record ↗
Contact
I would consider a technology-leadership mandate or a first compatible outside board contribution in industrial product development. I have no statutory service or equity, and my governance preparation remains unfinished. Twenty-three proposed annual days would require consent and review against the actual duties.
