The final-test fixture must reject real device faults without creating failures of its own.
A tighter contact condition protects test integrity, while a more forgiving nest protects build throughput.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I woke up ready to run, then saw the band had stopped collecting halfway through the night.”
Sithu Myint · Competitive runner
A member whose morning Recovery and Sleep insights depend on reliable nightly wear and charging.
What is at stake
Devices are failing final test at one station and passing after reseating elsewhere. You have to weigh faster build flow against preserving a test that catches real charging defects.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- first-pass yield vs. defect detection
- fixture tolerance vs. contact repeatability
- build timing vs. qualification evidence
- automated log analysis vs. physical verification
Why WHOOP
Continuous overnight sensing depends on wearable units leaving production with charging and test interfaces that behave consistently.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 40 more at WHOOP, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.