our cover references are better, the lesson pictures are still wrong

That's my instinct. Tutor wants one bad example to explain why the folders changed, not the whole old set. I can live with that if it's unmistakable.

I'd use one clearly explained comparison, then return to the current samples. A wall of wrong examples is quite capable of becoming the bit everybody remembers, particularly if the dramatic stripe is easier to see than the real defect.

Harish's seating point matters, and the real rejected feature needs to remain visible under that arrangement. Include an accepted reflective edge too, so improving the faint reject does not simply make ordinary reflections look unacceptable.

Harish, our holder has a rear contact that's hard to see too. Tutor can show the intended seat with the holder on the desk, but not confirm it from the normal loading view.

Then the slides aren't the only problem. Who's looking at the holder?

Tooling designer. I've asked for a practical seating check, not another arrow on the slide. The camera comparison stays provisional while that is unresolved.

Daniel, thanks for keeping the teaching problem separate enough to see it. We can explain an intended contact beautifully and still leave the loader unable to tell whether they made it.

Is the tutor involved in trying the proposed holder change, when there is one? They may notice the awkward reach before the designer gets another tidy photograph.

And retain the physical samples for that comparison. A changed holder needs the same accepted and rejected features, not a conveniently different set of covers that makes the lighting look better.

Bruno, yes. The slides should follow the checked arrangement, not become evidence for approving it.

Tutor is included, Harish. The old acceptance slides are withdrawn, with one labelled historical mistake kept for discussion. Tooling has the retained samples and is considering the seating issue; no revised holder to report yet.

Come back with that holder proposal. Ours is still under review, and I'm interested in what makes the rear contact check practical for the person doing it repeatedly, not just for its designer.