Some labels came from the pictures alone. We still have the samples, but those labels aren't tied to physical inspection results. That's irritatingly circular.

Keep the image-only labels uncertain pending physical inspection. A controlled comparison of lighting and presentation can then investigate whether the moving streaks indicate reflection effects.

@AlexCell A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.

@PriyaBrooks0829 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.

@AlexCell Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?

@NadiaAllen0291 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

Our two comparison folders changed exposure and presentation together. I can't tell which change made the images look better. That comparison needs a caveat too.

On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.

I can explain the reference uncertainty better, although the example images still don't support a performance judgement. Physical classification and image-condition comparisons remain outstanding.

The remaining physical-label and comparison work explains the open judgement. Clearer uncertainty doesn't yet establish inspection performance.