Grading: distinguish miscut/trimming from ordinary corner wear; fix surface over-hedging and over-calling

vision.py

@@ -278,6 +278,45 @@ drive the category — graders do not average corners.
   white paper showing through a coloured border, or a visibly blunted or \
   bent tip — not a uniformly soft edge. If a close-up is simply too blurry \
   to tell the difference, say cannot_assess.
+  A corner that looks out-of-square — not rounded or frayed, but genuinely \
+cut or angled differently from the other three — needs a different read than \
+ordinary wear, and three distinct things can produce it:
+    PHOTO ANGLE, rule this out first. A shot taken even slightly off-axis \
+compresses and skews the far corners relative to the near ones, exactly \
+mimicking a bad cut. If the card's outline looks like a parallelogram in a \
+way that follows the perspective of the shot — corners nearer the camera \
+reading "wider" — that is the photo, not the card. Do not report it as a \
+defect.
+    A genuine MISCUT is a factory cutting error: the border runs visibly \
+wider on one side than centering alone would explain, part of an adjacent \
+card's image bleeds in at one edge, or a border is entirely missing on one \
+side. PSA's MC qualifier is REQUIRED whenever this is present — it is never \
+optional and a miscut card never gets a plain numeric grade, only one with \
+MC attached. Say so explicitly when you see this pattern (it has to affect \
+the design-to-edge relationship generally, not just look like one corner is \
+off), since a miscut can coexist with an otherwise pristine card and \
+qualifier cards are conventionally valued around two grade-points below an \
+unqualified card at the same number — worth naming even though it isn't \
+reflected in the numeric estimate itself.
+    TRIMMING is more serious than either of the above and much rarer: it is \
+post-manufacture alteration, done to fake sharper corners or edges than the \
+card actually has, and PSA refuses ANY numeric grade once it's identified — \
+not a low grade, no grade at all. The tells are specific, so only raise this \
+when you actually see them, not from a single corner looking slightly odd: \
+corners that appear to curl or point UPWARD off the card's plane (PSA's own \
+term for this is a "bat-ear" cut), edges or corners that are glossy, \
+unnaturally sharp, or hooked compared to the card's own factory cut \
+elsewhere, or a cut that looks wavy/rippled rather than flat. A single \
+photo cannot confirm trimming the way calipers and UV light can, so treat it \
+as a possibility worth flagging in the note for the owner to check by hand \
+— phrase it as "worth checking for trimming" rather than a verdict, but do \
+name the specific visual tell that prompted it.
+    Absent any of the above, a single corner that's mildly not-square while \
+the rest of the card reads as a clean rectangle is ordinary manufacturing cut \
+tolerance — common enough, especially pre-1980s — and not worth flagging on \
+its own. Reserve this whole paragraph for when you can actually see one of \
+the three specific patterns above, not as a reason to hedge on an otherwise \
+normal-looking corner.
 - EDGES: look for whitening, nicks, chipping, or roughness along the four \
 edges. Assess top, right, bottom and left separately and let the worst one \
 drive the category — graders do not average edges.
@@ -317,6 +356,23 @@ loss of gloss, or foil/holo scratching.
   reverse-holo cards; and blocky square patterns from image compression. If \
   the right panel is uniformly busy rather than showing distinct lines, that \
   is print texture, not damage.
+  That uniformly-busy, texture-not-damage case is a "none" finding for that \
+quadrant — you looked, you could tell it apart from real damage, so say so \
+plainly. That is a different thing from cannot_assess, which is for when the \
+PHOTO fails you (real glare washing out a region, motion blur, a quadrant too \
+dark to make out either panel) rather than for when the panels are readable \
+but nothing damage-like stands out. Treat every SURFACE INSPECTION pair \
+you're given as sufficient, by default, to reach a real severity for that \
+quadrant — hold cannot_assess to the same bar you'd apply to a corner or edge \
+close-up that is genuinely too blurry to read, not to one that's merely busy.
+  Corroborate before calling something damage, the same direction as the \
+crease-vs-print-line rule below: a mark that shows up in the right (processed) \
+panel but that you cannot also point to, even faintly, in the left \
+(untouched) panel is more often a compression artefact or noise from the \
+processing than a real scratch. The right panel finds candidates; the left \
+panel confirms them. Don't report a right-panel-only mark as more than \
+"minor", and don't report it at all if you can't describe where it sits in \
+the untouched crop too.
   PRINT LINES are the important exception to that, and they are easy to \
   dismiss as holo texture when they are not. A print line is a STRAIGHT band \
   running parallel to one edge, usually spanning most or all of the card's \