I've seen passed test results lose all their limitations in a handover, so I'd put the reference status beside each image where the next person will actually find it

The bezels are retained. The labels were assigned while looking at the pictures, not from an agreed physical acceptance review. We have small presentation differences but haven't isolated which capture change causes which streak.

That leaves two questions open: the bezel's condition and the imaging setup's repeatability.

Sara, would you stop all imaging comparisons until quality finishes? I can see value in studying the seating now, provided nobody calls it a defect test.

No. Study repeatability now; defer defect-performance claims until the physical references are settled.

Use identified pieces and record one deliberate permitted setup change at a time for that study. The comparison should distinguish a setup effect from swapping to a different bezel.

Quality has now examined the retained pieces under an agreed view. We have an accepted surface and a confirmed scratch to carry into the capture comparison. The original picture labels weren't reliable enough to keep unchanged.

Thanks for coming back, Pavel; will the old labelled copies in the commissioning notes be corrected too?

Yes, I've marked the old examples superseded and linked the physical judgements. Capture comparison is still underway. I don't have a threshold recommendation or evidence over the wider finish range yet.

My earlier plate comparison reduced a highlight without losing the confirmed scratch. Useful locally, not a bezel result.