@ClaraAdams0089 I've found that some labels were assigned from the images themselves. The samples are still available, but those labels have no corresponding physical inspection results, making the reference 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.

A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.

@ThomasCarter0973 You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.

@ClaraAdams0089 Should uncertain images be treated as acceptable, or kept somewhere separate while their status is established?

Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

I've checked the image folders and found that exposure and presentation both changed between them. Their improved appearance can't be attributed to either change individually.

@LinCarter0966 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.

@LinCarter0966 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.

Those records can support the vision specialist's comparison of image conditions. Holding the representative sample set constant will make an acquisition change easier to assess.