Faceplate references from two different viewing methods

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.

Yes, Kai. Matching the acceptance decision doesn't necessarily mean copying the inspector's lamp onto the camera stand.

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.

Can the proposed view see the short scuff after normal reseating? Our brightest accepted band was much easier to see than the actual scratch.

Interested in that result too, Jasper. Sorting the inspectors' disagreement is a useful end to one problem, not necessarily the camera comparison.

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.