{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016159105034182723, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0074580484773151025, 'mean_word_length': 5.44, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Decision Rules: How one Calibration Software Vendor Approaches the Various Options of “taking uncertainty into account”

The latest release of ISO/IEC-17025 requires that calibrations laboratories must take their measurement uncertainty into account when making a statement of conformity to a specified requirement. The standard further requires the laboratory to take the risks (both consumer and producer risk) into consideration when employing these “decision rules”. While 17025 does not specify exactly what your laboratory decision rules must be, there are numerous documents that can offer guidance on the subject. Each method has its pros and cons relating to complexity, statistical rigor, and tradeoffs between the two sides of the risk equation. The modern calibration laboratory struggles to offer affordable services to customers who demand increased accuracy in their equipment. The old 4:1 TAR rule of thumb is long gone and with the customer shop floor equipment reaching the accuracies of the laboratory standards of just a few years ago, the challenge of maintaining an appropriate ratio of uncertainty is becoming progressively more difficult. This paper looks at the most common methods of taking that measurement uncertainty into account and how our software is configured and structured to allow the laboratory to apply several different methods depending on their individual customer requirements. These approaches are not fixed, one size fits all, but are customizable by the laboratory, to fit their customers exact requirements, even if their customers have widely different demands.