Just checked my emails and yes, it is there. It really doesn't bother me and I don't think it affects me. If it were the reverse and I was told I'm overlooking dirty pumps I might be concerned. My attitude is that I am inspecting a gas station, not a hospital room and, if anything, I tend to be too lenient.
I too received this email and my question for the MSC is: how did these photos make it to the client? Their email says that the client appealed stating that the pumps were in fact not dirty. If the editors were on board with the "non white glove audit" policy isn't it their job to question the shopper/s about the photos before sending them on to the client.
I have been doing audits for this MSC company and this particular client for many years and I have found that over time the editors got more and more picky about what was considered dirty or damaged. So, over time my reports began to reflect what I believed the editors were going to accept. The manual has always stated that these audits were not to be considered "white glove."
There are questions about dirt that can leave residue on your hands. I have marked pumps off for dirt that looked obvious to me but it is near impossible to get it to photograph well. If I rubbed against the pump by accident, I would get dirty. But now the pressure is not to mark that pump as dirty.