The first comparison looked repeatable until our loader removed the holder for cleaning and put it back. Now the stainless trim plate produces a bright band in a different place, and the annotated pictures call both positions scratches.
I have the actual plates and the before-and-after images for this UR5e inspection proposal. I want quality to settle the marked areas, but I also want the holder's return position checked. There's not much use in finding a lovely reference view that only survives until somebody cleans the bench.
Compare how the holder locates when refitted, with the loader and designer together. Keep the plate identities with those images while quality checks the marked regions; the holder finding and the scratch judgements may need different corrections.
Designer found the removable holder can sit against either side of a loose stop. Quality confirmed one actual edge scuff, but neither moving band is a rejected feature. We're retaining an accepted plate beside that scuff example.
Did the stop correction make the return position repeatable? I'd include removal and refitting by the ordinary loader, not only a careful seating demonstration from the person who repaired it.
Yes. Designer restored the locating stop and the loader repeated removal, cleaning and refitting. Position is consistent now. The edge scuff remains visible, but vision wants a second view for another required edge area, so the full inspection proposal isn't finished.
Keep the accepted plate in that second-view comparison too. A clearer picture of the scuff is useful, but the new view also needs to show how ordinary finish behaves after the same refitting routine.