<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p>I don't think these are very contentious, so hopefully a single response is sufficient.<br></p><p>
"(2) In requirement meas.003: After reading the standard, I think I
understood what that means, although I'm not sure what the reason for
the requirement is (let alone which use case it is derived from). Let me
try: "Each error instance must only be referenced by a single
measurement." Is that what you mean? If so, why?"</p><p>This means that 'Systematic' error should only show up once for any given value. When you allow errors from multiple sources, it opens the possibility that any given source (systematic, statistical, etc) could show up multiple times. We don't want that, I think. If there are multiple contributors to systematic error, we can't distinguish them anyway, so might as well consolidate them.</p><p><br></p><p>
"(3) While the document certainly cannot be an introduction into error
calculus, I have to say I can't tell the difference between
Error.statError and Error.ranError (I've looked things up in the
Wikipedia, and it says: "Measurement errors can be divided into two
components: random error and systematic error." So... from my own
experience I'd say it would be wise to either say a few words on what's a
statError and what's a ranError or, if that's too long, perhaps point
to some textbook."</p><p>I wanted to say that these come from the predecessor(s), either STC-1.33 or Characterization's Accuracy class, but I'm not finding it. Anyway, I know the 3 have been in the model since at least 2016, where they show up in discussions I had with Arnold. </p><p>Anyway.. I have no objection to reducing the set to systematic, and statistical only. This is consistent with what CAOM2 has, though it looks like it has 'sys' and 'rnd'.</p><p><br></p></div></div>