Quality owns that decision and we have the retained covers, though some old crops are not linked to a full view; I have kept those out of the current teaching folder rather than guessing which edge they show.

Check where those old examples are being used as well as where they are stored. I had an obsolete arrow survive on a printed teaching sheet after the digital folder was corrected. The next person was following the sheet quite reasonably; nobody had told them it was superseded. For your covers, I would retain the old caption in the history, withdraw it from current teaching material and issue the physical decision with the region identified. That is a document correction, not a claim that the camera can inspect the region yet.

Especially prints at the bench. They do not update themselves when the folder changes.

Quality has now judged an edge scratch on one cover as rejected and another cover as accepted; the full views locate both, and Henry's printed-sheet point caught a bench copy of the old captions which we have withdrawn.

Who normally seats the cover for imaging? Include that person's ordinary loading in the presentation check. A reference placed carefully by the vision specialist may not show the variation your production arrangement has to handle.

And establish coverage before appearance tuning. If a required edge falls outside the image at an intended presentation, the fact that the remaining face looks clean is not useful evidence about that edge.

So tightening the holder would not address that missing coverage. Is the vision designer comparing framing options for the full required region?

They have widened the proposed view so the required edge remains inside it, but the scratch occupies fewer pixels; we can no longer treat coverage and useful detail as the same question.

Can they still distinguish the required scratch, rather than merely locate where it ought to be?

That should be assessed against the defined defect requirement with representative references. An edge being in frame is necessary here, but the revised scale, lighting and presentation still have to preserve useful evidence of the defects you must detect.

Does the replacement teaching sheet show that limitation, Mia? Someone training from it should not read the new full-edge picture as an accepted camera setup.

Yes, the issued sheet labels the physical accepted and rejected regions and says the camera setup remains under assessment; the wider view is only a candidate, with detail checks still outstanding.

Then the reference repair and imaging decision are separate in the handover. Keep the original coverage failure with the candidate comparison too; a later sharper close-up must not quietly bring back the missing edge.