I've brought accepted shiny parts into this FR10 faceplate study, not just dramatic rejects. That lesson is sticking. The new problem is that the same accepted faceplate makes a bright diagonal in one seating and not the next, and the lesson folder still calls both images scratches.
The physical samples and original images are identified. I want the holder checked before anyone tunes a threshold to our seating habits.
Keep the existing accepted and rejected samples for that holder comparison. The accepted shiny edge matters, but so does the faint reject that the new arrangement must still show.
Who owns the scratch labels in the lesson folder? They may need correcting before the mechanical question is settled, or the next tutor will inherit a very well-filed mistake.
The rear locator had a small obstruction, and the loading position hid the gap. Tooling has removed the obstruction and is considering a visible seating check. The tutor owns the labels, Bruno Archer; we've withdrawn those scratch examples pending review.
Was the accepted faceplate checked physically after those repeated seatings? Retaining one sample is useful, provided handling hasn't added a new mark halfway through the comparison.
Yes, quality checked it again and still accepts it. The cleaned holder has made the images steadier, but our faint rejected mark remains weak in the current light.
Thank you for naming both unfinished parts, Luca. The revised lesson can show a seating improvement without promising that the inspection now catches the faint mark.