Some labels came from the pictures alone. We still have the samples, but those labels aren't tied to physical inspection results. That's irritatingly circular.

@EllaAli0207 Keep the image-only labels uncertain pending physical inspection. A controlled comparison of lighting and presentation can then investigate whether the moving streaks indicate reflection effects.

A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable

@EmmaBennett0724 Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

@DineshBrooks0821 Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.

@ImranAdams0131 I've checked the image folders and found that exposure and presentation both changed between them. Their improved appearance can't be attributed to either change individually.

@EllaAli0207 On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.

@FarahAllen0330 What did you keep beside each image? I can manage sample ID and settings, but I don't want a form nobody fills in.

@EllaAli0207 On my setup we kept sample ID, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition. Enough to explain a comparison without reconstructing the whole session from memory.

@FarahAllen0330 Those records can support the vision specialist's comparison of image conditions. Holding the representative sample set constant will make an acquisition change easier to assess.

Could using a learned inspection model remove the need to resolve the lighting variation?

Any learned model still depends on reliable labels and representative evaluation. Changing the method doesn't resolve unconfirmed physical defects or an uncontrolled comparison of image conditions.

@ImranAdams0131 And don't tune and test on different pictures of the same physical sample. That isn't the independence the result would suggest

@EmmaBennett0724 I've settled the review method: physical reference checks plus controlled image comparisons. That answers where to start; whether our inspection concept is suitable still depends on the resulting evaluation.

@EllaAli0207 That gives the evaluation a sound question to answer. Suitability remains dependent on those checks, as you've made clear.