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.

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.

So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.

@GabrielAli0192 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.

On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.

Which details did you retain with each image? I can record sample identity and settings, but I'd like a practical record people will actually maintain.

@ClaraBrown0872 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.