I am keeping physical defect judgements separate from image appearance in this UR5e faceplate plan. The existing captions still call shifting bright streaks scratches, so they need review, but my next concern is defining the presentation variation our capture comparison should include before tuning. A clean-looking favourite view is not enough.
What variation have you actually observed: repeated seating of the same plate, different parts, or deliberately altered poses? Start by recording those separately and ask the process owner which are expected in the intended presentation, rather than choosing a range because it makes the images convenient
Same-plate reseating changes the streaks with fixed camera and lamp. I have asked the holder designer to establish seating repeatability and quality to link physical decisions to the retained plates. Deliberate pose changes will be recorded separately from normal repeat placement.
Keep any required surface region that becomes hidden in those observations. A tighter presentation proposal may be useful, but the responsible team needs to establish that it can be maintained rather than simply delete the awkward views from the set