Which physical faceplate should our UR5e scratch lesson refer to?

We located two of the three faceplates. Quality accepted one and is reviewing the other. The third slide has no reliable sample link.

The accepted physical example can still teach the inspection method; it cannot validate the proposed automatic check merely by being accepted.

Who is checking how those plates sit in the presentation holder? I can't diagnose the stripe, but a different seating position between images would leave your lesson mixing two questions.

Keep that separate comparison, Nadia. Retain the accepted plate and an identified reject once quality supplies one. Check that improved presentation still shows the real rejected feature, not only less glare.

Tooling owns the seating review. Quality has now identified a small physical scratch on the second plate, away from the slide arrow. We are correcting the arrow rather than tuning around the old one.

That's a useful discovery. Will the loader be able to repeat the proposed seating, or is it still the demonstrator carefully placing each plate?

Loader review is included, but hasn't happened. The third slide is withdrawn as an unlinked example. Physical judgement, presentation and teaching-file changes have separate status in our notes.

Mark the withdrawn file where people download it as well, otherwise another printout can put the old claim back on the bench.