I have accepted and rejected faceplates for our UR5e comparison, but the old judgements used a bench lamp for some and overhead lighting for others. Moving bright bands labelled as scratches. Need quality to settle one viewing method before this becomes somebody's threshold setting.
Have the people who made those judgements compare the same physical plates under the agreed method. I'd keep the old calls attached until the disagreement is explained, not silently replace them with your preferred set.
Both inspectors are available. Same identified plates retained, including one they disagree about. I've asked them to use the appearance requirement and define the support and viewing arrangement together.
I would distinguish the physical acceptance method from the camera arrangement; the camera still needs to show the features quality actually judged, even if its light is positioned differently.
Quality review completed. Disputed line is accepted finish; a separate short scuff is the reject feature. The camera engineer now has those marked physical examples and the agreed viewing method, not just the old pass/fail filenames.
Bench comparison done with the original lamp repositioned. Scuff remains visible through repeated normal seats; accepted finish examples no longer dominate the view. Loader repeated the seats too. Reference set and candidate lighting selected for the UR5e presentation trial, not production thresholds.