I've accepted the physical bright-finished faceplate under our appearance method, but the FR10 study images label the reflected bench-hood strip as a scratch. A separate rejected plate has a faint mark near its edge. I need both in the comparison, not a lighting choice which makes everything pleasantly blank.
Keep those physical decisions beside the identified images, and have the vision owner compare both plates under the proposed presentation, because making the hood reflection disappear is only useful if the real edge mark remains visible.
Both are retained and identified. New viewing arrangement removes the broad strip on the accepted plate. The rejected plate's faint edge mark is harder to see as well. No threshold choice from that pair yet.
Which bit is actually outside the useful view, Jasper: the defect itself or the area around it? I'd ask that before changing everything again. A less distracting picture is nice, but it doesn't give you much if the required edge has become the least informative part.
Could the edge need a separate view? Just a candidate to compare. I'd keep the same accepted and rejected plates rather than find an easier reject for the new arrangement.
Emma, the mark is in frame but poorly visible. Vision owner is comparing an additional edge view, Liam. Same two plates; the awkward reject isn't being swapped out. We haven't accepted the combined presentation yet.
Who will load the plates for that comparison, Jasper, because a view the developer can obtain after a little personal adjustment may still be difficult for the normal loader to repeat?