Our FR10 trim-plate comparison quietly mixes two finishes

Identities are recoverable from the original sample sheets, Omar; the slide export dropped the finish column, so we've asked for that restored before comparing the views

Does the proposed station need to inspect both finishes without changeover, or can an approved recipe identify which one is being presented?

And is seating held constant between those pictures? I'd keep the variables apart before reading too much into the cleaner-looking finish. On our holder discussion the locating features mattered more than the outside outline.

Don't turn two finishes into one average pass. The awkward one still exists.

Gabriel, both arrive in the same workstream and no identification method is approved yet; Jack, the pictures also use two seating arrangements, so that nice clean comparison has rather a lot missing

Then show the current limitation to the trainer as well. A lesson about the approved process cannot quietly use the easiest finish and leave the other one unexplained.

Anna, agreed, though separate candidates might be reasonable. I'd want the finish identification and changeover work included before calling that a solution rather than two good photographs.

Naomi, could the next bench comparison keep seating fixed and compare both identified finishes under each proposed light arrangement?

Yes, that is the next comparison request, with the known rejects for each finish retained; no new results yet and neither finish has disappeared from the station scope

Good. Two separate check boxes, no flattering combined score.

Will the image export keep finish and sample identity automatically next time? Recovering that column should not become the trainer's recurring detective job.