There is a mistake in the reference picture for the WE camera. As correctly pointed out by Michal, the reported picture of the WE pay cam refers to a time when the integration time of the camera was already decreased down to 450us (from the original 1800us). The correct picture is attached here, along with the circulating power comparison.

I took also a comparison of the illumination of the markers as seen from the camera (second picture: purple is the reference before WE intervention - Apr 3 15:30 UTC, blue is after the intervention). I tried to get a zero reference (third picture) which gives WE_MIR_DR_0 = 26500 a.u., and WE_MIR_UR_0 = 17800 a.u.. This yelds a variation: WE_MIR_DR_2 = 30500 - 26500 = 4000; WE_MIR_UR_2 = 20700 - 17800 = 2700 (after intervention) while WE_MIR_DR_1 =37300 - 26500 = 10800; WE_MIR_UR_1 = 21700 - 17800 = 3900 (before intervention). When accounting for the difference of circulating power in the west arm we have:

WE_DR2 = WE_MIR_DR_2/WE_pwr2 = 8.8; WE_UR2 = WE_MIR_UR_2/WE_pwr2 = 5.9;
WE_DR1 = WE_MIR_DR_1/WE_pwr1 = 22.2; WE_UR1 = WE_MIR_UR_1/WE_pwr1 = 8.0;

The conclusions are that the intervention on the WE payload (mirror + baffle replacement) have for sure removed the bright spot on the bottom left (possibly a spurious reflection of the viewport illuminated by a lot of stray light) and also some reduction on the illumination of the markers of the baffles (to be reassessed after the tuning of the RH is complete).

As a side note, the powers in the arms appear to be more unbalanced than before, but I guess that this also has to be reassessed after the work of recovery is complete.

(I attach here also the picture of the camera after the intervention for completeness, fourth picture).