Why does our accepted cover acquire a scratch beside the camera?

Yes, it is still identified and available. The two viewing setups are different, so I want to avoid asking them to judge under whatever lighting happens to be nearest.

Right, keep their agreed viewing method. I meant bring the sample comparison together.

Thanks, Chloe. We have a side view now. One edge can sit against a small lip instead of dropping onto the support, although we haven't checked whether that explains the whole image change.

Repeat both positions deliberately on the bench with the vision engineer, keeping the other imaging settings fixed. I mean a comparison of the positions, not teaching the robot to alternate between a good seat and a bad one.

Did quality keep the accepted judgement on that cover?

They did. The accepted cover has no reject feature matching the line. Vision engineer wants it compared with a confirmed scored cover after the seating review.

I would keep the awkward seating example for the fixture review as well, because our bracket discussion only made sense once people could see which contacts each sample favoured.

The two-position comparison changes the bright line strongly. Designer is revising the lip clearance. The scored-cover comparison is still pending; I don't want to assume a quieter image will detect the defect.

Sam, will the revised clearance still support the cover consistently, or does it remove a contact that was doing useful work too?

Please post the scored-cover result when you have it. That would finish the part I'm following.