Not yet. Numbered and retained, but the captions came from our image discussion, not quality's physical inspection.

Then keep those captions out of the reference answers. They can explain the imaging problem without deciding that the underlying cover is accepted or rejected.

I'd keep full views with the numbered parts too. I can follow an arrow on a cropped shiny corner quite confidently and still be looking at the wrong corner; the link needs to survive somebody who wasn't there when it was drawn.

Quality rejected a fine score on one cover and accepted the other's broad bright region. Full views locate both.

Now compare those same covers under recorded seating, presentation and lighting conditions. Change the factors separately enough to know whether a disappearing score follows the illumination or the part's actual position.

Will the normal loading method be represented, rather than only the vision person's careful placement?

Yes. Repeated normal loading keeps the intended seat, but one planned view hides the score. Vision is revising that view before any threshold work.

That gives the view revision a real job to do. Please keep the accepted cover in the next comparison as well; it would be a shame to recover the score by teaching the camera to dislike every bright region.