I asked why two FR5 cover images labelled 'same scratch' had different orientation marks, and found that somebody had rotated one image to make the bright bands easier to compare. The physical covers weren't identified in the slide.
And now the adjusted pair is in our training folder. How do I recover something useful without making the next trainer believe an editing choice established a real defect?
Withdraw that defect claim from the working lesson and retain the original unedited frames; then recover the actual sample identities if you can, rather than trusting the rotated comparison.
Originals found. Same cover appears in both, with different seating, but its label isn't readable. The trainer has removed the pair from the acceptance exercise while we look for the sample record.
What connects those two frames to the same cover if the label is unreadable? Is that known from the capture record or somebody remembering the session?
Capture record says the same cover was reseated between them. It gives a tray position rather than an individual ID. I should have said that is our recorded link, not a confirmed sample identity.
That correction matters. You can explain the image-editing problem without pretending the pair is a validated acceptance example. I would keep the lesson about evidence separate from the eventual set used to teach the actual surface decision.
Callum, agreed, but I'd be careful about showing the edited pair first in that lesson; people may remember the lined-up bands better than the correction.
Fair concern. Start with the originals and make the editing step explicit. The useful question is what the change did to the viewer's interpretation, not a dramatic reveal of a supposed scratch that was never established.
Bruno, the full frames show two rear-contact positions. Holder designer has those originals. Quality found the tray batch but cannot identify the individual cover, so that physical decision remains unknown.
Are replacement physical references being selected, Blake? Otherwise the careful lesson about uncertainty still leaves you with nothing to compare when the imaging work resumes.
Yes, quality is selecting identified accepted and rejected covers for the new holder comparison. Thanks Victor for pressing on the identity link. I was one confident sentence away from repeating the same mistake with better punctuation.
Give the trainer the original frames, known setup details and unresolved identity together, so the later explanation does not quietly lose the uncertainty when somebody tidies the folder.