I've found that some labels were assigned from the images themselves. The samples are still available, but those labels have no corresponding physical inspection results, making the reference circular.

Keep the image-only labels uncertain pending physical inspection. A controlled comparison of lighting and presentation can then investigate whether the moving streaks indicate reflection effects.

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

@AlexAdams0124 Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

@NaomiAbbott0071 So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

@AnnaBell0677 Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.

@NaomiAbbott0071 Our two comparison folders changed exposure and presentation together. I can't tell which change made the images look better. That comparison needs a caveat too.

@LeoAbbott0014 On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.

@LouisAbbott0050 The inspection concept remains undecided because the available references and images don't establish reliable discrimination of the required defects.

Your reason for holding the decision is clear: the current evidence doesn't establish reliable identification of the required defects.