The faceplate reference folder contains contradictory judgements

The labels were assigned from thumbnails by two engineers. Neither inspected the faceplate. It has been retained, so quality can still examine it directly.

Good, get that judgement before treating either label as correct. Also retain both images with their conditions if you have them. Their disagreement can help the vision team understand what changes with presentation.

Are those conditions actually saved? Image files often have camera settings but nothing about the lamp position or how the part was held. The missing half matters here.

Exactly. If something is unknown, mark it unknown rather than reconstructing a precise setup from memory. The old pair may illustrate a problem without being suitable for a controlled comparison.

Can you make a small controlled comparison with that retained sample before paying for a large labelled image collection? You need to know what conditions and judgements the collection must include.

Include confirmed acceptable and damaged parts when you do. A setup that suppresses the bright streak on this one faceplate may also suppress a real defect on another.

Quality has inspected the retained faceplate and found it acceptable under the existing criteria. We have prepared a small identified set including confirmed damage. The new image records include illumination and presentation details.

Who can change an acceptance label in that set, and where is the reason recorded?

Quality will approve changes, with the original judgement retained. I should clarify that the vision engineers can propose a review, but cannot silently relabel a part to fit a threshold.

Will the same ownership remain after commissioning, when the original engineers are no longer on site?

Put that responsibility in the handover with the reference set and acquisition settings. Otherwise the first person covering a difficult shift may inherit the same two conflicting thumbnails that started this thread.