Quality has identified our accepted bezel and a rejected scratched example, but their UR5e camera images change markedly when the removable support insert is exchanged. Both inserts carry the same setup name. I want to establish the presentation difference before those bright bands become more defect labels.
Compare the actual seated height and orientation on both inserts, using the same identified bezels and unchanged camera conditions. The shared setup name may be hiding a physical difference.
The second insert has a different support step. Tooling is checking its revision; the same bezel sits higher on it, and the bright band crosses the inspected edge.
We had two visually similar supports kept together because both were called camera nest, and the person issuing them had no usable distinction; give stores the actual applicable identity, once tooling confirms it, rather than asking them to judge the image
Second insert belongs to a different bezel variant. It was placed in the same drawer during a bench move. Tooling confirmed the applicable insert and stores has separated the two identities.
Repeat the comparison with the correct insert and both physical references. You have explained the presentation change; the view still has to reveal the scratch without treating the accepted reflection as a defect.
Yes. Loader selected it from the revised sheet and repeated the presentation. The confirmed scratch remains visible; accepted edge reflection still varies enough that the vision engineer is comparing another lighting arrangement.
Thanks for closing the stores part too; please give the covering loader the same sheet, because they are the person least likely to know the drawer's history