Cannot select FR5 cover references while the holder changes their appearance

Thomas, not reliably from the loading side. Sam, both retained covers are in the comparison. We are keeping the full frames and noting the seat rather than sorting images into scratch folders.

Good. Keep the old training pictures out of the acceptance set as well. We found those could survive long after the source folder was withdrawn.

Does either seat hide the known defect?

Yes, Jane. The rejected cover's faint scuff is much less visible in the second position. The accepted cover also looks less streaky there, which makes that view tempting for the wrong reason.

Then a cleaner accepted image cannot choose the seat for you.

Thomas, exactly, and Pavel already has the two physical judgements needed to explain why fewer bright bits is not automatically a better inspection image.

What is the holder designer proposing? Software cannot make an ambiguous physical seat stop being ambiguous.

A changed locating contact to make the unintended seat unavailable. It is a proposal, not a modified holder yet. We will repeat both covers and representative production pieces if that change is made.

Who will approve the changed contact for the finished surface?

Jane, useful point. Better location could still leave a new mark.

Quality and the tooling engineer will review it together, Jane, including surface condition before and after handling. Oliver, the old labelled training copies are withdrawn too.

Thanks for closing that training-copy gap. Is the relief operator included when the revised holder is evaluated?

Keep the seating comparison with the handover, Pavel, so the next person knows why the apparently prettier second view was not chosen.