{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02138157894736842, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019736842105263157, 'mean_word_length': 4.855769230769231, '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}}
On the alleged inconsistency in CISPR 16-1-1 performance tests for disturbance analyzers

A claim of inconsistency in the verification tests of click analyzers has been raised in a recent paper [1]. More specifically tests 2 and 3, as defined in the standard CISPR 161-1 [2], are found to be inconsistent with the click definition in the same standard. A rebuttal to the claim of inconsistency is here offered. In addition solutions are proposed to detect transient disturbances so that the measurement of click duration and separation can be successfully carried out without slipping into any inconsistency.