Why does our faceplate training crop exclude the confirmed scratch?

Full camera image includes it. Tutor cropped the centre for readability. Actual edge scratch is outside that crop.

Then who chose the centre as the useful bit? I ask because the learner may have been told to look there for a reason that still appears elsewhere in the lesson.

And keep the scratch judgement linked to its physical location; a rejected faceplate can still have a harmless reflection elsewhere, so the whole image should not become a map of defects.

Nora, yes. Show what quality actually rejected, not a general red border around the plate. An accepted comparison with a similar bright band would make that distinction less abstract.

Jonas, tutor used the brightest region as the example. No physical mark check behind that choice.

Has the tutor seen the actual faceplate with quality? That seems cheaper than repairing every slide around an explanation they still believe.

I agree with Jonas. Also distinguish the acceptance judgement from visibility in one image; a confirmed scratch may be difficult to see under a poor presentation.

Tutor and quality compared it. Bright band not the rejected feature. Edge scratch identified on part and full image.

Will the replacement detail show enough of the edge to locate that scratch, rather than another floating patch that only the person making the slide can orient?

You can use a full view and a linked detail without squeezing everything into one picture. Keep the same part identity and show where the detail came from. That's easier to teach than asking a beginner to mentally assemble two mysterious silver rectangles.

Draft now pairs full view and edge detail. Accepted faceplate with a strong band is beside it.

Are the two faceplates shown under comparable presentation conditions? Otherwise the learner could mistake a lighting difference for the reason one was rejected.

Yes. Same recorded camera and support arrangement. Quality checked those image links, not only the captions.

What happens when the learner asks whether the band would trigger the proposed inspection? Your revised lesson explains the judgement, but that sounds like a separate question still waiting for the vision engineer.

Still waiting. Draft says image-rule comparison remains open. Learner walkthrough next; no claim that the camera is ready.

That's an honest place to leave it. Ask the learner to point to the rejected feature and explain the accepted band without you supplying the names; their answer will tell you whether the replacement pictures do their job.