Two have definite links. A third image group cannot be assigned to a piece. Quality has the two retained faceplates; I am not going to make the third fit by resemblance.

Keep that third group as unassigned diagnostic material; a useful example of changing reflection does not need an invented physical identity to stay useful

And keep the original captions with their source, outside the confirmed answers; otherwise the next reviewer cannot tell which labels were corrected and which were physically established.

Quality accepted both linked faceplates. The reported lines were not physical reject scratches. We now have two accepted surfaces that produce strong bands, but no confirmed scratch example for the intended defect study.

Who will supply a traceable example of the required scratch class, rather than let a different convenient defect fill that gap?

That gap matters even if the accepted pieces behave beautifully in a new view; accepting good surfaces and detecting the required defects are different evidence

Quality owns that reference request. Imaging is recording a controlled comparison of the accepted finishes meanwhile, with the absent scratch coverage shown explicitly. No overall inspection pass or threshold decision from those two pieces alone.

Then keep that split visible in the project summary, not only the detailed image folder; two accepted references should not become all reference work complete on the purchasing slide.