We retained the faceplates and can link repeated views. No agreed physical judgement yet.

Keep those repeated views grouped by plate while quality decides. Then retain accepted variation and a confirmed reject for imaging comparisons, with capture settings and the intended presentation recorded.

I would also preserve which labels were disputed. Replacing them silently can leave a trainer using an old copy with no reason to question it, even after the technical reference set has improved.

Harish, yes, and a clean-looking replacement image alone wouldn't explain why the old label changed. The part identity and physical decision need to travel with it.

Quality accepted the plate with the moving stripe and provided a rejected faceplate with an identified scratch. Thanks Jonas for separating the surface decision from the picture.

What are you changing first in the imaging comparison? If the support and lighting both change, you may get a better image without learning whether the seat or illumination caused the difference.

Tooling is defining repeatable seating first. Lighting stays unchanged for that comparison. Both physical references remain in it.

The revised seat reduced presentation variation on those two samples. We haven't completed the lighting comparison or checked the wider finish range.

Keep that limited result beside the retained images. A successful seating comparison is useful evidence, but it does not yet establish detection of the required defect range under the final inspection conditions.