The faceplate's brightest stripe moves away from its scratch

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.

Keep an accepted plate in the comparison too.

And fix the lesson arrow now. You don't need a new lamp to stop pointing at the wrong place.

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.

That's a holder question before a threshold question.

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.

And the real rejected mark must remain visible after the holder improves. Less stripe isn't automatically better inspection.

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.

Has the old slide been withdrawn from the shared folder?

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 Corrected file is there and the earlier deck is marked withdrawn.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.