One would hope that once a calibration laboratory has been accredited by a recognized agency, you could take the uncertainties shown on their scope of calibration at face value. In theory, an assessor from the agency will have reviewed their procedures and uncertainty budgets to bring such a state of bliss into existence. Unfortunately, too often I’m reminded that this is not the case and while the majority of labs are relatively consistent in the uncertainties or CMC values shown on their accredited scopes, an increasing number are not.
Like anyone in the gage making and/or calibration field, I get involved in measurement disputes from time to time, the majority of which are resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. I also get emails from readers of this column looking for answers to ongoing measurement disputes within their own company. These requests are usually prompted by one party looking for verification of what they believe is the proper way to do the calibration or, alternatively, to shoot down another party’s idea of how the world works.