@VictorAdams0098 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.

Mark those labels uncertain and have the samples inspected properly. Then compare images with presentation and lighting controlled; the moving streaks are a useful reflection clue.

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

@VictorAdams0098 So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

@CallumChan1056 Keep them explicitly undecided, with the sample link. Don't use them as confirmed examples of either class until the physical review settles them.

@VictorAdams0098 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.

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.

@VictorArcher0359 For my separate setup, sample identity, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition were the useful essentials. They let us understand comparisons without relying on recollection.

@HarishBrooks0837 Use those details to ask your vision specialist for controlled comparisons on representative surfaces. Keep the sample set fixed when assessing an acquisition change.