Scratch labels attached to reflections

Yes, five numbered covers are in the teaching drawer and the uncropped originals show those numbers, the crops in the worksheet don't

Then keep those originals attached to the crops. I nearly said replace the crops, but they may be useful once somebody can tell what they came from.

Henry, yes, I meant rescue the link to the part, not defend the judgement written on it.

Is the cover seated the same way in all the originals? Number visible helps identity. It might also show whether the edge is in the holder properly.

Useful question, Rachel. I'd show the full holder in the comparison too; cropped metal can hide a seating problem as easily as it hides the number.

The originals already show one cover sitting above the rear support, Rachel, so I've pulled that image out of the normal-seating group and kept it as a separate example for the vision engineer

Was the cover deliberately tilted for exploration, or did it fail to seat normally? Those would give the holder designer different work to do.

No explanation in the notes, and the person who took it hasn't answered yet; I shouldn't have implied a holder fault, only that the picture shows a different seat

That is enough to keep it out of the repeat-seating comparison for now. The original remains useful when the photographer can explain what they were trying.

Have quality seen the five parts yet? Interested whether any of those bright lines earned the scratch label.

Quality accepted four and identified a real rejected scratch on the fifth, not at our brightest arrow; photographer also confirmed the raised cover was a deliberate lighting experiment, so the worksheet now separates that from normal presentation and thanks Henry for stopping me reversing every label in a fit of annoyance

Keep that last point in the handover. The bad labels are sorted, but you've still got a camera arrangement to compare with the accepted parts and the real reject.