I've found that some labels were assigned from the images themselves. The samples are still available, but those labels have no corresponding physical inspection results, making the reference circular.

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.

@ElenaArcher0427 Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

@NoraAli0235 Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?

@SaraAdams0113 Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.

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.

I had a separate inspection setup where the 'better lighting' folder used easier samples too. Its name implied a lighting conclusion that the comparison didn't support.

Which details did you retain with each image? I can record sample identity and settings, but I'd like a practical record people will actually maintain.

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.

My starting point is clear: establish physical references and compare image conditions in a controlled way. That resolves the planning question while leaving inspection suitability dependent on evaluation.

@RachelBaker0522 That gives the evaluation a sound question to answer. Suitability remains dependent on those checks, as you've made clear.