Tamper Evident Cap Capping Machine

1. Inspect as-received components. Record closure reference and lot, and retain examples before feeding. This separates incoming damage from marks or broken features introduced later.
2. Review the complete application path. Include bulk supply, sorting, transfer, placement, tightening and outfeed. Identify where the band or bridges might contact a guide, chuck or spindle surface.
3. Define the accepted unopened state. Use the closure supplier’s drawing or approved sample to identify band position, cap height and intact features. Do not treat a generic picture as a dimensional limit.
4. Assess the specified opening event. Use a separate identified sample group for first opening. Record the intended tamper response separately from the peak torque and the permitted reclosure behaviour.
5. Segregate damaged or previously opened packs. Another tightening pass does not restore broken bridges or an original unopened state. The responsible package owner must approve any rework disposition.

Does a high tightening peak prove the tamper band is correct?

No. Resistance can come from thread engagement, component interference or another cap event. Check the band and cap position against the approved package and use the defined first-opening method.

Should a pack with a damaged band simply be capped again?

Not as a default remedy. Retain the defect evidence and follow an approved disposition. The re-torquing and rework guide explains why a second tightening operation must not be used to hide a damaged tamper feature.

Send untouched bottle-and-cap samples, the closure supplier’s application drawing and your accepted unopened and opened examples. The inspection and reject guide helps distinguish visible checks from functional tests. No camera-detection or tamper-test performance is implied for the existing capper models.