Which physical cover belongs to our UR5e scratch example?

Both covers have marks on the back. The image only shows the front. Quality hasn't checked either against that caption.

Is there an uncropped capture or loading photograph showing the identity? Worth looking before everybody starts matching shiny streaks like fingerprints.

Does a visible feature distinguish their fronts independently of the claimed scratch? I would not use the disputed bright line to decide which part it belongs to.

Reece, yes, but only if that feature is genuinely traceable. Two similar reflections can make a persuasive match that the physical parts do not support.

That's why I asked for the wider record. I'm not volunteering as the department's reflection detective.

Understood. I meant a distinct physical feature, not another bright patch.

Found the original full image. A corner notch identifies one cover; the cropped lesson hid it. Quality is checking both parts.

Was the crop made for a particular lesson, Rebecca? I'd like to know whether the notch was deliberately left out to focus on the finish, or whether the file just got passed around without its context.

Finish lesson. Tutor cropped it and copied the scratch caption from the old slide. No inspection decision behind that caption.

Then the crop itself wasn't the whole problem. You can keep a useful close-up once it links back to an identified full view and an actual decision. I'd hate to replace this with a rule that every slide must show every corner forever.

Agreed. Give each close-up a job. The full view establishes which cover and area it belongs to; the close-up can show the feature at useful scale. Neither should acquire a reject label just because a bright line looks dramatic. For the working comparison I would include quality's accepted covers as well as real rejects, with the relevant feature locations marked. Then repeat the intended presentation and compare lighting against that set. Otherwise you can make the images beautifully calm by hiding the faint defect you needed to see. The original caption mistake and the imaging problem need different work.

Who is responsible for keeping the physical covers with those new decisions?

And will the person presenting them know which holder arrangement produced the new images? The part labels won't help if the setup changes unnoticed.

Luis, the close-up/full-view distinction is useful. Rebecca could put the physical identity in the slide notes and beside the image, so it survives being printed as well as opened on screen.

Quality checked both. The pictured cover is accepted; the other has a real scratch elsewhere. Both retained separately with decisions. Guessed caption withdrawn.

Now keep the accepted reflection and the real rejected scratch in the same presentation comparison. You've repaired the reference problem without having to pretend the first cover was defective.

Harish, holder identity is on the capture sheet. Nadia, the revised slides link full view and close-up visibly. Tutor checked the printed version.

Has the older printed lesson been removed from the teaching station too?

Yes. Old copy removed and replacement checked by the relief tutor. Thanks, Luis, for not making the image match a convenient reject.