We have the plates from the latest session. Earlier images are not linked to individual pieces. I will keep those earlier labels out of the proposed reference set.

Who is authorised to judge the surface against your appearance requirement?

Our quality lead. Two inspectors have given different opinions, so I have asked her to examine the retained plates with them.

I'd keep both opinions recorded until then. The loudest person at the bench isn't an inspection standard. You may also find they were looking under quite different light.

They could still disagree under the same light if the requirement is vague, Farah, so I would ask what distinction the quality lead is applying rather than expecting a better lamp to settle everything.

Have the camera settings and presentation positions been retained for the latest session? Those will matter once you compare images of a physically agreed example.

Exposure is recorded. Lighting position was changed without notes. We can repeat the session, but we cannot reproduce every old picture accurately.

Our old image export dropped the setup notes and left only part names. People treated two lighting experiments as production repeats. I'd preserve the session details beside the originals before they get separated again.

I would begin with a small identified set rather than expanding the folder now. Each example needs a physical decision and a traceable capture condition before it can help choose a threshold.

Rosa, did you recover the setup notes or have to take the pictures again? Wondering how much of that old set survived.

We recovered notes for one session from the technician's notebook. The rest became historical examples only. Annoying to redo, but nobody could honestly tell us where its lamp had been.

Quality has agreed one scratched reject and two accepted plates. The reject's damage location is marked in its record. The moving bright streak was not their reason for rejecting it.

Can the proposed view show that agreed scratch consistently?

Not yet. In some views the glare hides it. We have a repeat imaging session planned with fixed settings and recorded light positions.

Try the agreed plates in those conditions before buying another camera. You've already got enough uncertainty in presentation and lighting to keep the current one busy.

And include replacement into the holder during that session, because a condition that works only while nobody touches the plate may be unsuitable for your handling sequence.

Quinn, replacement is included. Isabel, we are keeping the current camera for this comparison. Thank you both; I had originally planned repeated images without removing the plate.

What happens to a plate when the eventual image is inconclusive? It would help your handover to name the person who makes that decision, even while the imaging work continues.

Quality will handle inconclusive inspections in the proposed workflow. The repeat session still shows glare changing after replacement, so fixture consistency remains under review and I have not approved the reference set.