Some labels came from the pictures alone. We still have the samples, but those labels aren't tied to physical inspection results. That's irritatingly circular

@DineshBarnes0560 Keep the image-only labels uncertain pending physical inspection. A controlled comparison of lighting and presentation can then investigate whether the moving streaks indicate reflection effects.

A scratch's visibility can change with presentation too. Don't let 'moving streak' quietly become the rule for relabelling something acceptable.

You're right to qualify that. The streak behaviour motivates an imaging investigation; it doesn't replace physical classification under the agreed inspection procedure.

@PavelBrown0875 So uncertain isn't the same as good? Where do those images go?

Retain their sample identities and undecided status. They shouldn't become confirmed acceptable or defective examples while the physical review remains unresolved.

Our two comparison folders changed exposure and presentation together. I can't tell which change made the images look better. That comparison needs a caveat too

On my inspection setup, a folder called 'better lighting' also contained easier samples. The folder name was doing a lot of unearned work.

What did you keep beside each image? I can manage sample ID and settings, but I don't want a form nobody fills in

On my setup we kept sample ID, exposure, lighting arrangement and presentation condition. Enough to explain a comparison without reconstructing the whole session from memory.

@HanaCarter0970 Those records can support the vision specialist's comparison of image conditions. Holding the representative sample set constant will make an acquisition change easier to assess.

Would a learned model just cope with the lighting differences?

Any learned model still depends on reliable labels and representative evaluation. Changing the method doesn't resolve unconfirmed physical defects or an uncontrolled comparison of image conditions.

@PavelBrown0875 And don't tune and test on different pictures of the same physical sample. That isn't the independence the result would suggest.

@NaomiAllen0332 I'll keep all images of one sample together when we split tuning and evaluation sets. Our file names alone wouldn't have caught that overlap

My starting point is clear: establish physical references and compare image conditions in a controlled way. That resolves the planning question while leaving inspection suitability dependent on evaluation

@DineshBarnes0560 That gives the evaluation a sound question to answer. Suitability remains dependent on those checks, as you've made clear.