Why does our UR5e bezel reject arrow change edges after reseating?

They identified a fine scratch beside the locating notch; the big arrow was following a reflection along the opposite edge, added later by the person preparing the slides.

The notch gives you something useful to match, but keep the whole view with each crop so the next person does not have to rediscover which edge is which.

Was the accepted comparison bezel checked under the same quality method? I would not let the clean label on its storage bag supply that answer.

Yes, both physical bezels were checked together; the accepted one produces a stronger bright band than the scratch on the rejected one, which explains the original temptation to mark it.

Who replaces the marked copies in the lesson, so the camera specialist and the covering tutor stop receiving different versions of the same bezel?

And does the real scratch remain visible across the required reseating range?

Ravi, our tutor controls the shared lesson and has withdrawn the guessed arrows; Pavel, the scratch becomes hard to see at one permitted seating position, so the optical comparison is not finished.

Give the fixture designer that awkward position with the optical comparison, because removing it from the pictures would not stop an accepted bezel sitting there.

Designer confirms the position is within the required range; vision is comparing another lighting arrangement with both identified bezels, and the lesson now shows the weak view as an unresolved imaging example.

Thanks for retaining the weak view. Has the programmer received that same corrected set?