The exterior cylinder is labelled visible on the drawing. We've only got phone photos in workshop lighting, with no link to the customer's viewing procedure.

Get the viewing procedure, then compare handled and untouched samples using it. Include a softer pad as one candidate for reducing the marks.

I'd qualify the softer-pad suggestion. Debris retention and dragging during release can matter, so softness alone could lead the comparison in the wrong direction.

Fair point; I gave softness too much emphasis. Compare geometry, actual surface condition and release as well. Softer is a candidate, not the expected winner.

Would pairing handled and untouched samples from one batch help us avoid attributing incoming scratches to the fingers?

@VictorCarter0968 It's useful, but take a before-contact photo of each handled sample as well. Two pieces from the same batch needn't have identical incoming marks.

If lighting changes whether you can see a mark, which result counts?

Use the customer's agreed procedure for acceptance. Other lighting can reveal clues about contact, without becoming a different unofficial pass-or-fail test.

@WillAdams0139 I found the customer's lighting and viewing procedure in the quality pack. Our phone photos don't match it, so that procedure will govern the comparison.

On a separate finished-sleeve job, an edge imprint mattered more than the broad contact haze. The accepted viewing method stopped us arguing over dramatic photos.

There's a repeated line at the finger edge on our samples too. It hasn't been checked using the required lighting, so I'm treating it as something to investigate.

Show the repeated line against the contact edge in the drawing. Have the supplier explain the support shape and how contact changes during release.

More contact area also needs scrutiny. It must still support location and retention, and could extend into a surface the customer judges cosmetically.

Agreed. The tooling specialist needs to check revised geometry for cosmetic contact, retention and release together. Good-looking samples don't establish handling suitability.

Is supporting it on a hidden surface an option?

One end area isn't marked cosmetic, although the drawing doesn't authorise supporting there. I'll check with the designer before treating it as available contact space.

That's worth checking. Being outside the cosmetic zone doesn't remove other dimensional or access requirements that might prevent using it as a support.

@WillAdams0139 For our sleeve job, we also checked pad condition after representative handling. A pad that looked excellent clean raised different maintenance questions once it retained debris.

I can frame the appearance comparison properly, though the samples don't yet support a contact choice. The review still needs to cover retention and release as well as finish.