Our accepted faceplate has the strongest scratch label in the folder

There is a sheet, but the rejected plate was entered under a temporary sample number. I've found that number in the originals. Quality is checking the feature against the actual plate.

And the accepted one? Don't quietly lose it because its reflection makes the folder inconvenient. That is exactly the surface the proposed camera has to tolerate.

I would put the temporary and permanent numbers together while you rebuild the set. We once relabelled samples beautifully and left the original image sheet using the old names. Next person assumed half the evidence had disappeared. A tiny table would have spared a very boring afternoon.

Quality matched the reject and confirmed the small mark near its screw hole. The accepted plate's stripe has no corresponding rejected feature. I've linked both sample numbers and removed the guessed scratch label, not the accepted image.

Does the proposed holder leave that screw-hole area visible?

Also, who receives the corrected set for the teaching material?

Sara, the holder leaves it visible, but the bright band crosses it in the current view. Hassan, the tutor has the corrected set with the number cross-reference. Imaging still needs work.

That cross-reference is worth keeping with the originals. Does the next lighting comparison use these same two plates and a recorded presentation?

Yes. Vision is comparing them under the same located presentation, then an alternative lighting arrangement. We are not changing the labels to make either arrangement look better. Thanks, Jack, the tutor immediately asked about the old number.

Useful. Is there a borderline plate in quality's set too, or only the obvious pass and fail so far?