Neither of the two retained plates has a recorded decision yet; their view groups are identified, and the disputed regions can be located from the edges rather than from where the streak happens to appear.

Our earlier bezel pair became much more useful when quality supplied an accepted finish beside the reject. I would keep both plates available, even if one appears visually uninteresting after inspection.

John, yes, and keep the uncertain judgement as a real state until somebody makes it. My own set had a located mark that still needed assessment; locating something on metal is not the same as deciding it fails.

Keep the original captions outside confirmed reference answers. They still explain why the images were questioned, without becoming the standard the next comparison must satisfy.

I would also ask the regular loader to do that placement, Nadia, because a camera specialist's careful seating can hide a preparation habit the next shift was never taught.

Luis, I'd record both placements rather than use the loader's result as a pass or fail by itself. If they differ, the useful question is what each actually did and which method the proposed process requires.

Does the image view cover that end mark? It may not be where the original scratch caption drew attention.

And are the original teaching copies still in circulation, or were these only planning images?

Keep the marginal-coverage view. It identifies a requirement the favourite image could hide.

Jane, that is what helped our teaching pair. The difficult view explains why an extra view may be necessary. A clean final picture alone can make the earlier problem seem like needless fuss.

The placement comparison found both loaders reproduce the agreed seat within the reviewed range, while the end mark still lacks adequate image coverage at one intended pose; the imaging lead has rejected that pose for the proposed inspection sequence.

Then the coverage decision came from the feature you actually need to inspect, not a presumed bad holder. What alternative sequence is the imaging lead assessing?

They are assessing a second view for the end region alongside the main face view, keeping the accepted reflective plate in both comparisons; there is no threshold or full inspection acceptance yet, but no holder replacement is justified by this repeat-seat result.

Keep those boundaries in the handover. Physical references are agreed, one pose is unsuitable for coverage, and a two-view candidate is under assessment. None of that requires pretending the whole inspection is finished to report useful progress.