Trim-plate scratch labels copied onto a different finish

They've judged the first, not the second; both are retained, and the second has the brush direction across the width rather than along it.

Keep the finish identity with each image. Matching outlines cannot transfer the judgement.

Include both finishes in the trial plan if both will arrive at the station. You can keep their reference groups separate without accidentally scheduling only the easier group for the demonstration.

Our reference comparison recently lost a faint reject while gaining a more obvious scratch. Keep the difficult actual examples in yours. A convincing picture of a different defect can make the presentation look settled while the original question remains unanswered.

Inspection has now judged both finishes and selected accepted and rejected examples in each; the second original plate was accepted, so its copied scratch caption is withdrawn.

Are the difficult rejects in the returned images?

Yes, but one proposed view hides the faint reject on the cross-brushed finish while showing it on the other finish, so we have an actual difference to address now.

Does the supplier propose a common imaging method or separate finish-specific setups? Either has implications for changeover and the operator's identification task, so I would ask before the quote quietly assumes one.

They propose two views for both finishes, with the same holder contacts; the returned bench set includes all our retained examples and shows the faint rejects under that combination, which quality has checked against the physical samples.

Did the ordinary loader repeat those seats, Sam? The returned set sounds useful, but the holder can still be relying on a trial engineer placing each plate especially carefully.

Not yet, Callum; that is booked as the next bench comparison, and I have left the loader check open in the lesson rather than calling the imaging candidate commissioned.