New rule: Claims of a "representative" image should have to be supported by submission of 2 better ones that were not included.
It works like this.
Line up your 9 images that were quantified for the real analysis of the outcome. In the order by which they appear to follow your desired interpretation of the mean effect.
Your "representative" image is #5. So you should have to prove your claim to have presented a representative image in peer review by providing #8 and #9.
My prediction is that the population of published image data would get a lot uglier, less "clear" and would more accurately reflect reality.