Two faceplates share one scratch label

Both plates are available. One has a small notch on the rear edge. It identifies several images. The remaining front views do not show that edge.

Leave those remaining views unattributed for now. Do the inspected parts have distinct quality decisions, or has the shared name confused that record too?

What changed between the views with the travelling streak: plate position, lamp position, or both? That detail may still be recoverable even where the plate identity is not

Carla, quality inspected the notched plate and accepted it. The other has no decision. Leah, the capture notes record reseating with the lamp fixed for the identifiable views.

Then the accepted plate can support a new labelled set, with its identity retained, while quality assesses the other plate independently; the old scratch labels still need withdrawing wherever they were copied.

Omar, it appears in the draft training pack. I have withdrawn that page. Both plates now have separate identifiers linked to rear and front photographs.

Leave a note where the page was. A missing page invites somebody to restore it from their email copy.

The draft page now says references under review. We have retained the original pack separately. The supplier has been told not to use its scratch examples.

Good. Who owns the replacement examples?

And obtain at least one quality-confirmed rejected feature for the imaging comparison, because identifying an accepted plate does not show whether the proposed view reveals the defects you need to detect.

Keep an awkward accepted example too, please. Our trainees meet those constantly.

Quality owns the physical decisions; I own the linked image set. Their sample selection includes finish variation and rejected marks. The currently unassessed plate remains separate.

Is the reseating method representative of the proposed tool, or are you still moving the plates by hand? That affects what your comparison can tell the designer

Hand placement in a prototype nest. Its side clearance permits visible tilt. Tooling is reviewing the seating arrangement before we collect the replacement set.

Record the current nest revision with the existing captures so the subsequent comparison can distinguish a seating change from a different physical sample.

Current nest is A2. The files already identify A2, but the sample-name collision made them difficult to use. No revised-nest results yet.

Thanks for giving the actual revision. That saves another guess in the training notes.

Keep the unassigned old views out of that replacement set. They can stay in development without acquiring a guessed identity.