@AnnaChen1199 Some labels came from the pictures alone. We still have the samples, but those labels aren't tied to physical inspection results. That's irritatingly circular.

Mark those labels uncertain and have the samples inspected properly. Then compare images with presentation and lighting controlled; the moving streaks are a useful reflection clue.

That clue needs a limit: presentation can also change how a real scratch appears. Movement in the image isn't enough to reclassify the sample as acceptable.

@LeoBennett0710 Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

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

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

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.

@DineshBennett0734 On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.

What did you keep beside each image? i can manage sample ID and settings, but i don't want a form nobody fills in.

On my setup we kept sample ID, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition. Enough to explain a comparison without reconstructing the whole session from memory.

Use those details to ask your vision specialist for controlled comparisons on representative surfaces. Keep the sample set fixed when assessing an acquisition change.