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.

@OscarAbbott0010 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.

@VictorAdams0098 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.

Correct. I meant a reason to investigate the imaging, not a new defect label. Physical acceptance stays with the agreed inspection method.

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.

@VictorAdams0098 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.

I'm holding the inspection decision. Our current reference and image evidence can't establish whether the method reliably distinguishes the defects we care about.

@OscarAbbott0010 Your reason for holding the decision is clear: the current evidence doesn't establish reliable identification of the required defects.