I have a folder where the same brushed plate is accepted from one angle and scratched from another. The bright line moves. We still have the plate. I want to sort out its physical judgement before buying lighting for a problem the labels may have invented.
We had a sample everyone recognised on screen and nobody could identify on the bench. You have the useful half already. Have quality examine that plate and link its judgement to the full images, including where the bright line appears.
Quality found no scratch where the line appears. There is a small rejected mark near the fixing hole. That was outside the crop used for the accepted image.
Then keep the complete face in the reference view. The accepted label needs correcting, but make it clear the rejection belongs to the hole-side mark, not the moving line.
We once spent a discussion locating a bright band before asking where the actual damage was. Your crop has managed the reverse trick. I would bring the label author into this comparison, without making it a public trial of their eyesight.
Quality will hold them. We have this rejected plate and four accepted examples. I have also kept the original crops, but they are no longer the tuning set.
Does the holder let different people seat the plate the same way? The angle change may be deliberate in your images, but it is worth separating that from accidental rocking.
Both need doing. I'm not proposing repeatability as a replacement for coverage. Diane has already found the cropped-out mark; the next presentation still has to show it reliably.
The angle changes were deliberate. But the plate can also rest on the near edge of the temporary holder without reaching the rear supports. Two different problems, as you say.
That second seating deserves its own comparison with the same plate, not a new pile of images from whoever happened to load next. Otherwise deliberate angle and accidental seat will get mixed again.
Not from the normal loading position. The temporary holder was made for the demonstrator. Tooling is reviewing the contact arrangement and a visible seating check.
And ask an ordinary loader to try the proposed presentation when it is ready for that review. The demonstrator now knows where the awkward seat is and may avoid it without noticing.
Quality is included, Daniel. No new contact fitted yet. The current holder images will stay labelled by which seat was used; I am not merging them into one apparently stable setup.
Yes. One accepted finish produces a broad stripe in the edge seat, which disappears at the intended seat. Quality's physical acceptance is unchanged. The rejected hole-side mark remains in the comparison.
Useful. It gives tooling a concrete presentation problem and vision a real accepted surface to retain. Neither has to work from the most dramatic crop anymore.
Who will withdraw the old labelled crops from the shared training folder? Retaining originals is useful, but the next person should not pick them up as current references.