Our proposed FR5 camera station presents brushed trim plates with small pose differences. Bright streaks shift, but their captions still call them scratches. I need a physical reference set and controlled image comparison before commissioning, including what happens when the image cannot settle the surface decision.
Can each questioned caption be traced to the original capture and an identified retained trim plate? A screenshot can change the apparent feature before the camera setup even enters the argument.
Yes, the full captures and retained plates are linked. We have kept the captions as disputed. Quality has not judged the surfaces yet, so the links establish identity, not the answer key.
What appearance method will quality use for the retained plates, so their viewing and cleaning conditions are consistent with the actual product requirement?
And preserve the accepted bright examples. A reference set made only of damaged plates can make the camera discussion forget how much normal finish varies.
Quality used the agreed appearance method and accepted two broad streaked regions, but rejected a fine score on a third plate. The score has its own marked location; the bright band on that same plate is not the rejected feature.
So keep the region decision with the plate identity, because calling the whole third image reject could teach somebody to use its harmless band as the reason it failed, even after quality has clarified the metal
Only some existing views show the score clearly. Imaging and tooling are comparing its visibility at recorded seating conditions, alongside the accepted bright regions, before any threshold is selected.
Does that comparison distinguish measured changes in seating from image movement alone? I want to know whether the holder is being assessed, not simply blamed because the stripe travels.
Tooling measured the intended contacts and repeat seating; those are consistent within the reviewed presentation range. Imaging found the score loses contrast at one allowed angle under the current light, so the next candidate concerns illumination rather than a proven holder defect.
The second illumination arrangement keeps the score visible in the small retained set at those angles and leaves the accepted bands distinguishable. We have not tested the full finish range yet; uncertain images still go to the defined quality review rather than becoming automatic passes.
Keep the limited sample range in the result, Luis, and put the reviewed physical regions in the teaching material now; the old captions need not keep circulating while the wider imaging assessment is still unfinished