The physical plates survived, so that is possible. Our current folder has several images of the same plate with different labels, but no record that quality made either decision.

Who is keeping the plate-to-image link? Give one person ownership. Otherwise a renamed file and a moved sample can undo the careful inspection without anyone noticing until training starts.

Are those different presentations deliberate angle changes, or does the plate move in its holder?

Beth's question matters for the next comparison. I would repeat one seat with fixed conditions first, then change presentation deliberately. It is easier to explain a result when the loader and lamp have not both changed.

Then keep those old images as observations with missing conditions. Don't retrospectively assign an angle because a highlight looks familiar. The new capture can be better without rewriting what you know about the old one.

Quality accepted the broad bright region and rejected a small edge gouge on another plate. We have captured identified views at the proposed inspection pose. The gouge is partly hidden there, which is a more useful problem than our original bright-streak argument.

Is another view being assessed for that edge, or is the inspection scope being reduced?

Another view is being assessed; quality has not agreed to omit the edge. Thank you, Isabel, for insisting on accepted examples too. We now have physical decisions, but the camera plan still lacks demonstrated coverage of the actual rejected feature.