Review the target region
Compression can alter the appearance of fine text, boundaries, and textures. Inspect the regions relevant to the task at a useful scale rather than judging only the entire image. Describe unacceptable outcomes with example crops. A file extension or attractive thumbnail is not sufficient evidence that the delivered image preserves the detail your model needs.
Ask about transformations
Request the known export history: resizing, recompression, sharpening, background removal, and format conversion. An existing archive may not retain every step, and that uncertainty should be documented. Keep original and derived files linked when both are supplied. Avoid mixing heavily processed derivatives with originals under a single undifferentiated quality label in the manifest.
Separate appearance from integrity
A file can decode successfully while containing severe artifacts, and a clean-looking preview may hide a truncated or mismatched source file. Run file-integrity checks and visual review as separate acceptance steps. Confirm that dimensions and orientation agree with annotations. Keep rejection reasons specific enough to distinguish transport damage from a source-quality limitation that requires a different acquisition choice.
Set task-based tolerances
A broad scene classifier and a fine-detail inspection task may need different tolerances. Review a representative range before setting a universal threshold. Document how exceptions are sampled and handled rather than promising artifact-free imagery. In a sourcing project, the pilot should establish the relationship between practical source constraints and the visual evidence required for your intended application.
Review checklist
- Inspect task-relevant detail at useful magnification.
- Request known export and processing history.
- Separate decoding checks from visual review.
- Set tolerances using representative pilot images.