A depot technician finishes an edge peek on a robot vacuum's mainboard BGA and types the standard line into the repair log: 'all BGA joints inspected OK under microscope.' The peek was genuinely thorough — four sides, mirror, raking light, no findings. What does the section say about the log entry?

Select one answer.

• It is earned — a four-side, mirror-assisted peek with no findings is the most complete optical inspection a mounted BGA permits, and the log line reflects the work performed.
• It needs a tool citation — 'inspected OK' becomes defensible once the log records magnification level and light setup, since auditability is what inspection notes exist for.
• It overstates only mildly — the correction is to append 'no defects observed,' which converts the claim from a verdict about the joints into a report of the session, and repair logs accept session reports as complete records because they bind the inspector to what happened rather than to the hardware's true state, which no log can reach anyway. The append is the industry's standard softener, and the log culture treats it as adequate.
• It is false the moment it is written: the peek reached four outer rows and the gross geometry — the hundreds of joints inboard were never in evidence, and 'all joints inspected' claims the field the geometry withheld. The bounded note records the reach instead — 'outer row wetted and bridge-free, four sides, mirror-assisted; field not optically accessible.'