The covers are identified and retained. They were reseated for the example pictures, with small differences visible. The scratch labels were assigned from the screen rather than a separate physical review.

Can quality examine an accepted bright surface as well as the suspected scratch?

Yes, include accepted finish variation. A system that rejects every bright line could find the scratched example and still be useless. The initial reference group should help distinguish those behaviours before a broader evaluation is planned.

Will the seating review establish which variation is intended, rather than assume every pose in the old pictures belongs in the final process?

That is not defined yet. I have asked tooling to establish the intended seat while quality reviews the covers. I do not want a fixture fault disguised as a camera setting.

Nor the reverse. A sound seat does not establish that the lighting reveals the surface reliably. Keep both questions in the comparison.

Agreed. Improving one photograph isn't the acceptance test.

Use repeat captures of identified pieces with deliberate changes recorded separately. Otherwise a new cover, a new seat and a new light position can all change at once, and the clean-looking result tells you little about which condition mattered.

Quality accepted the bright feature on one cover and confirmed a physical scratch on another. Tooling also found that one of our photographed seats was outside the intended locating condition. Both findings are recorded separately.

Does the scratch remain visible in the intended seat, not just in the old awkward presentation?

And can another person reproduce that seat from the instruction? Otherwise the comparison may depend on the demonstrator's careful placement.

Those are the two useful next checks. Keep the original misseated image as an explained example, not a normal-condition test result and not a reason to erase the fact that the former setup allowed it.

The intended-seat comparison retained the confirmed scratch and reduced the moving bright feature on the accepted cover. A second loader reproduced that seating. This is only the initial two-cover comparison; the wider finish range remains untested.

Thanks, Luca. Including the accepted bright cover stopped us judging the setup only by whether it found our obvious reject. The reference records now contain the physical decisions and both capture conditions.

That gives the wider study a defensible starting point. Have quality and vision select evaluation pieces outside the tuning group, with the intended finish variation recorded, before claiming inspection performance for production.