Our UR5e faceplate lesson has identified accepted and rejected references, but the accepted plate returns from repeated loading with new streaks and the class keeps labelling them scratches; some move with presentation and some stay where a student held the face, so I want the physical condition checked before we tune anything around the latest pictures.
Was the accepted plate examined again after the exercise? Its old decision describes the condition it had then. If handling has changed the surface, you need to know that before treating every new line as a reflection or every reflection as damage.
Not yet re-examined, and the loading video shows fingers touching the inspected face while the plate is seated; original reference photographs are retained separately from these new images.
Quality found handling residue rather than a scratch on this plate, and has specified its preparation before it returns as an accepted reference; Fiona, the current holder hides most of the easy edge grip once the plate enters it.
So a loading note alone may be asking for a trick. I would have the holder designer watch the actual loading, including the point where the student loses access to the edge, before deciding the student just needs a more emphatic instruction.
Designer watched the recorded loading and is comparing a removable carrier that lets us seat the plate by its edges outside the holder; it is a proposal, not something we've asked the class to improvise.
And keep the genuinely rejected plate in the comparison when the accepted one returns. Better handling should preserve the references, but it won't by itself tell you whether the image setup can reveal the faint reject while tolerating the accepted finish.
Carrier proposal uses defined locating contacts and a visible seated check, Fiona; the bench version is ready for comparison, with quality preparing the same accepted plate and retaining the separately judged reject.
Yes, quality confirmed it after the specified preparation; the carrier comparison then kept its face untouched and its seat repeatable, with both identified plates retained through the viewing exercise.
Cover tutor also completed loading from the revised note without prompting, Sara, thanks; the handling problem is closed, but the accepted bright band still challenges the proposed image rule, so we haven't called the inspection finished.
Don't throw that accepted band out of the study because it is inconvenient. You've stopped the exercise changing its own samples; now the imaging has a fair pair of awkward examples to work with.