@AlexBrown0907 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.

Mark those labels uncertain and have the samples inspected properly. Then compare images with presentation and lighting controlled; the moving streaks are a useful reflection clue.

@AlexBrown0907 A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable

Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

@RachelBarnes0609 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

I've checked the image folders and found that exposure and presentation both changed between them. Their improved appearance can't be attributed to either change individually.

I had a separate inspection setup where the 'better lighting' folder used easier samples too. Its name implied a lighting conclusion that the comparison didn't support.

@AnnaCarter1025 Which details did you retain with each image? I can record sample identity and settings, but I'd like a practical record people will actually maintain.

For my separate setup, sample identity, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition were the useful essentials. They let us understand comparisons without relying on recollection.

The reference problem is clearer, but I still can't judge inspection performance from our example images. The physical labels and image comparisons need more work.

@ChloeBarnes0570 That follows from the reference gap. Explaining it more clearly helps, but the images still can't carry a performance claim.