I have an FR5 faceplate example labelled scratched, but the obvious bright stripe moves when we reseat it. Under the agreed hand-inspection view I can see a small mark elsewhere. I've kept the plate and original images. I want the reference set to follow the physical judgement, not whatever feature makes the most dramatic slide.
Has quality judged that particular mark and the rest of the visible face, Alex? I would establish that before changing the labels. A retained part gives you a useful link, but the original label still needs a responsible physical judgement behind it.
Quality rejected the small mark. The bright stripe is not the defect location. They have marked the feature on a full view linked to the retained plate.
Who owns those lesson files? Correcting the master reference will not change a deck the trainer already copied elsewhere. Make the judgement and image identity visible in the replacement material.
Training coordinator owns them. She's replacing the misleading example. Quality has also supplied an accepted faceplate of the same finish for the imaging comparison.
What happens when the same plate is reseated, Alex? I'd separate that from changing the lighting so you can tell whether a holder problem is being hidden by a more flattering view.
The stripe moves with reseating even though the light stays fixed. One corner can sit against either side of a temporary guide. The loader says it feels seated both ways.
Keep both seating cases for the tool designer, with the loader showing what feels correct. The less obvious case may be the one the production instruction needs to distinguish.
Tooling has proposed a defined contact replacing the temporary guide. Nothing fitted yet. Both physical references stay in the next comparison, with the rejected feature named correctly.
Yes. Corrected file is there and the earlier deck is marked withdrawn. The camera trial is still open; the file correction isn't being presented as its result.