Not against an agreed requirement. People judged the pictures. I've asked our quality contact to assess the retained plates rather than keep arguing over brightness.

Keep each plate's identity and uncertainty with its images while that happens. You do not need to throw the pictures away, but they cannot yet provide settled targets for tuning.

Photograph the intended seating too, so whoever presents the plates has a position reference independent of the highlights being investigated.

Quality has returned decisions for the retained plates. Some are accepted despite bright streaks; others have actual marks. I have grouped their views by plate and kept the physical decision separate from the image features.

Now compare lighting changes and presentation changes separately. I would keep a marked plate in each comparison alongside accepted ones. You want to know whether a setup reveals the genuine mark, not simply whether the resulting photograph looks calmer.

Who will decide what happens when the future inspection image is inconclusive?

Quality will define that route. The repeat captures still vary after plates are removed and reseated, so I haven't chosen thresholds. Imran's seating picture is now part of the capture sheet.

That should help the operator, but inspect whether the holder actually constrains the presentation consistently; a clear picture cannot compensate for an ambiguous seat.

The holder is going back to tooling for that review. Thank you, Imran; we had been treating every reseating difference as something the camera should tolerate without asking how much movement was intended.

Keep the intended presentation range in the review request. Some variation will remain even with a clearer seat, and the imaging assessment still needs to cover it before acceptance.