Why did our accepted cover become three scratch examples?

Harish, yes, but a genuinely marked part can be hard to see under the wrong light too. I would not let one quick glance replace quality's viewing method.

That's why I said agreed light. I'm arguing against a new camera being the first move, not against doing the physical inspection properly.

Quality rechecked the identified cover and still accepts it, Mina. Harish and Farah, they used the written viewing method. Victor, they've added a faint scuff reject. The same holder lets the accepted cover sit two ways, which we also need to fix.

Which surfaces locate it? Two seats suggests a holder question before a lighting purchase.

Keep the awkward seats documented. They explain why the old examples disagreed.

Ravi, would you keep those in operator training once the holder changes? I worry about teaching people to accept a seating problem as normal variation.

As labelled diagnostic examples, not the new acceptance references.

Farah, I use that sort of pair to show why seating matters, separately from the pass and fail examples. It works only if the distinction is obvious in the training material.

Jonas, the temporary holder located against a loose edge strip; tooling has replaced it with a checked locating arrangement. Repeat images are more consistent. The faint scuff still needs a better lighting comparison, so thresholds remain undecided.

That's progress without pretending the whole inspection is done. Did the holder change make loading more fiddly? A camera trial can miss that when the designer places every cover like it's jewellery.

Luis, who owns the reference covers after commissioning? They need condition checks and replacement rules, especially the faint reject everyone will want to handle during training.

Victor, thanks for explaining the diagnostic pair. I can use that distinction in our changeover training without mixing old holder behaviour into the new acceptance examples.