Connect error categories to a reference judgment
To describe an error, the evaluation first needs an appropriate reference for the example. If the reference says a relevant issue is present and the proposed method fails to identify it, that is different from flagging an example judged acceptable. Both can matter, but they may have different consequences.
Explain the categories in language the client uses. The terminology should not conceal disagreements about what the object represents. If the expected answer is uncertain, record that uncertainty instead of treating it as an ordinary correct or incorrect result.
Ask what the error causes in practice
An unnecessary flag can create extra review, handling, or interruption. A missed issue can allow an item to continue without a needed check. The significance depends on the operational task and should be discussed with the responsible process owners.
This is why a universal acceptance percentage is rarely enough for planning. A client needs to know which errors occurred, under which conditions, and what response would be available. Criteria should reflect the use context and any required specialist assurance, not a number chosen simply because it looks strong.
Keep counts and conditions visible
A summary rate needs its denominator: how many examples were represented and what kinds of examples they were. A favorable aggregate can conceal a difficulty concentrated in a particular finish, orientation, or capture condition. Report those patterns when the study supports them.
Do not treat missing or unusable observations as successes. An evaluation can include separate categories for inadequate views and unresolved reference judgments. The rules for those categories should be defined before interpreting the result so the summary remains understandable.
Use the error review to choose the next investigation
Examine representative errors and connect them to possible causes. The problem may concern visibility, the inspection rule, the sample collection, or the interpretation method. A result table alone cannot establish which explanation is correct.
A useful follow-up asks a specific question: would a changed view reveal the feature, do reviewers agree on the boundary, or is a missing variation needed in the evaluation? Keep the proposed response proportionate. An error review is a tool for development, not a claim that the concept is ready for unrestricted use.