Yes, the plate identities are retained. Their image labels disagree with each other.

I would keep those disagreements together for the review. They show where the labels are uncertain. Deleting the awkward view can make the folder look consistent without making the surface decision any better.

I'd put the actual plates in front of quality and the imaging person together, because another round of annotated pictures sounds cheaper until everyone spends half a day describing a different stripe

Oliver, that joint look also helps the handover writer know which feature people mean, though I would still want an identified decision beside the image rather than rely on everyone remembering the meeting

Keep the original images untouched. Revised labels can live beside them. Otherwise the next reviewer cannot tell whether the judgement changed or the evidence was replaced.

Quality accepted one retained plate and confirmed a scratch on another. Both will stay in the comparison.

Which imaging condition are you changing first? If presentation and lighting move together, you may improve the result without learning which change helped.

Presentation first. The current nest allows the plate to sit at visibly different angles.

That sounds worth a simple seat comparison before buying lights, provided the fixture person confirms what the plate is meant to contact rather than just forcing it flatter

Sara, how will the person loading it recognise the intended seat? A holder can reduce variation while still leaving its correct use obvious only to the person who designed it

Rebecca's question matters for the repeated views too. I'd include removal and reseating under the intended method, not just several photographs while the plate remains untouched in a good position.

Nora, yes, and the rejected plate needs those repeated presentations as well; it should not get one carefully chosen angle while the accepted sample gets all the awkward ones.

Who owns the retained samples between sessions? A useful reference set is less useful after someone polishes the marks out while tidying the bench.

Quality holds them now. Tooling is defining the contacts and seating check; no new lighting selected.

Settings are incomplete. I'll use new controlled captures for the comparison and retain the originals as history.

That's a useful limit, Sara; the old folder can explain why you're doing the work without becoming a pretend baseline with settings somebody filled in from memory

The revised-seat comparison reduced the moving highlight on the accepted plate; the confirmed scratch remained visible. Wider sample range remains untested.