Our UR5e inspection examples show the same reflective bezel in two slightly different seats, with bright bands labelled as different scratches. I can still identify the bezel, but no one has recorded a physical appearance decision for it.
I want to stop those arrows becoming the acceptance reference while we sort the holder and lighting. What should the tutor keep from the current images?
Keep the originals with their uncertain labels clearly withdrawn from acceptance use; the moving bands are useful diagnostic material, not a reason to teach either scratch claim as fact.
The tutor has removed the scratch exercise and kept the originals separately. Quality is checking the identified bezel; the holder's repeat seating still needs comparison.
Ask quality to retain an accepted example with a strong reflection and a genuinely rejected feature too. On an earlier comparison, making the image quieter also made a faint defect harder to see. You need both sides of that tradeoff visible before choosing the view or tuning thresholds.
And name who owns the replacement lesson. Withdrawing the old one helps, but someone still needs to bring the physical decisions and new images back together.