@FelixAdams0110 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.

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.

@FelixAdams0110 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.

You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.

Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?

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.

@BethChan1107 I had a separate inspection setup where the 'better lighting' folder used easier samples too. Its name implied a lighting conclusion that the comparison didn't support.

@HanaAllen0274 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.

I've settled the review method: physical reference checks plus controlled image comparisons. That answers where to start; whether our inspection concept is suitable still depends on the resulting evaluation.

You've settled the starting method, with inspection suitability still tied to the physical-reference and controlled-image evaluation.