Three covers retained and numbered. The pictures use those numbers. Labelled from the pictures, not a physical inspection.

Who has authority to decide acceptable appearance here? I wouldn't replace the camera team's guesses with whichever person happens to walk past the bench.

Quality lead. I have asked her to review the three against our appearance requirement. No extra samples selected yet.

Are the images original captures with exposure and lighting recorded? Before spending on new optics, I would want to know what changed between these apparently contradictory examples.

Original files, but lighting positions weren't recorded. Exposure varies too. We changed things until the surface looked clear, which makes the folder rather poor evidence of consistency.

A small repeat session with recorded conditions would help once the covers have agreed judgements. Keep the whole surface visible in the reference images, including where any confirmed damage lies.

Could you keep a little set for the operator handover as well? I mean the actual covers if storage permits, because somebody will eventually ask whether a new mark resembles the example.

Yes, quality is keeping them. She accepted two and rejected one for a nick near the edge. None was rejected for the broad bright streak we labelled.

Do the old scratch labels still appear in any training folder? Moving your working copy won't remove those.

There was a shared slide deck too. I've marked its examples unverified and asked the owner to replace them. The tuning folder now uses quality's recorded decisions.

Can the proposed imaging conditions show the nick without falsely rejecting the two accepted covers? That is a more useful comparison than making one selected photograph look clean.

Not consistently yet. One accepted cover gets strong edge glare, while the nick can disappear in another view. We are comparing positions with all three present.

Include reseating in that comparison, Reece. Otherwise you may choose a condition that only works while the person arranging the first cover leaves it untouched.

Did the slide owner replace the old examples? Interested because ours survived a correction in a handout somebody printed before the meeting.

Deck replaced. Printed handout withdrawn too; thanks Nadia, I hadn't asked about copies on the bench. New handover examples still waiting for the repeat imaging result.

Latest comparison suggests inconsistent seating contributes to the glare change. Fixture person is reviewing the holder. We have agreed physical references, but no threshold acceptance yet.

What did you observe at the holder that points to seating? I'd like to know before treating that as the explanation for every image difference.