We have identified accepted and rejected polished covers for our UR5e inspection study. The training slides put scratch arrows on opposite sides in two views of the same accepted cover. The original quality decision has not changed. I need to find where the views became inconsistent before the maintenance team learns those arrows as facts.
Check the original captures before retaking anything. Is there a hole or edge feature which establishes orientation in both slides? I recently removed exactly that information while tidying an image for a page.
The fixing hole changes sides in the slides, but it stays on the same side in the original captures. The source filenames and cover identity match. I have kept the originals apart from the annotated exports.
Is the slide tool mirroring one image to fit the layout? That would be my first cheap check. A changed viewpoint should still agree with the physical features, whereas a mirrored picture can give you a beautifully impossible cover.
Keep the capture conditions too, once you've sorted orientation. Our label card moves in and out of the picture and the camera is on automatic exposure. There's more than one way to make the same plate look different without giving it a new defect.
Jack found it: the slide layout flips alternate pictures horizontally, while the arrows were placed from the original views. The cover has not moved in the way those slides suggest. The affected training slides are withdrawn.
Yes, Chen. Card held up for identification and removed afterwards. I hadn't expected that little bit of housekeeping to matter to the picture, but it's in the comparison now. Jamie's flipped export is a different issue; I wouldn't blame his camera for it.
Chen, some are. Anil, the accepted cover's arrows were notes about bright lines, not quality rejects. A separate rejected cover has a confirmed defect, and its arrow was misplaced by the same flip. We need to fix both location and meaning.
I'd remove the automatic flipping and rebuild from the originals. Otherwise the next person adding a note has to remember whether they are marking a physical feature or its reflected twin. That's a silly extra skill to require for an inspection handout.
And leave investigation notes as notes. A bright line worth asking about shouldn't acquire a reject label just because it got an arrow in the lesson. The confirmed reject needs its own physical decision behind it.
Rebuilt without flipping, with physical acceptance separate from image observations. Quality checked the confirmed defect location and the accepted cover's bright-line notes. The fixing hole remains visible in every reference view now.
Yes, the bench holder permits reversal. Our intended comparison uses the fixing hole on the operator's right, but the loading note did not show that. I am correcting the note against the retained setup views, not calling the holder mistake a camera defect.
Are the retained repeat-loading images all in that intended orientation, Jamie? Otherwise the rebuilt slides may be consistent while the threshold-study folder still mixes two presentations.
The identified reference set is in that orientation. Two exploratory reversed-load images are now separated from it and clearly described. We still need the ordinary-loader repeat comparison under the corrected note; the image-label repair is finished, not the planned inspection.
I'd be interested whether the next loader spots the right orientation without being prompted. Our notes always look obvious to the person who just spent a week fixing them.