*I have a very good understanding of principles of weighing, however specific regulatory codes is not my expertise, so please keep this in mind. *
Generating high quality data and regulatory compliance often overlaps, but they're mutually exclusive. It would be more useful if you can state what kind of application and specific needs that must be met.
The requirements for academic and corporate R&D laboratories that use analytical balances in pursuit of scientific inquiries is vastly different from forensic laboratory. In scientific research, you would explain why things were done a certain ways and why this method would improve the quality of data.
In forensics laboratory working on drug evidence, environmental liability scandal and in other places where the primary concern is government regulation compliance and having courtroom tough lab results, complete traceability all the way to the primary standard without a gap is a greater importance as the results are expected to be scrutinized by any possible reasonable doubts by a panel of expert attorneys looking to dismiss unfavorable evidence.
For example a class 1 weight of 200g the certificate would add decimal places to show it meets a certain class tolerance. Would it be proper to list it as a 200g weight or a 200.002375 weight. I'm trying to understand why some vendors list their weights using these 2 formats and which one is correct.
SECOND POST:
Well the reason I asked is we had a 200g balance calibrated. The weight was listed as 200.0004260 the balance read 199.9997. My supervisor stated that this balance was out of tolerance because 0.00072 was over the stated
This is fairly common misunderstanding which leads to user error and resulting data quality degradation. A 0.3mg skew on one time check with an audit is perfectly fine for many analytical balances. It isn't ok in a perfect world, but they're not a perfect device.
I wasted time trying to explain something, because I thought your mass is off by 2.4mg which would be beyond unacceptable for ANSI Class 1. (your profile says India, but you didn't mention which class was used, so I assumed, for analytical, ANSI/ASTM class 1(US customary standards) or OIML E2 is used), then in your later post you said the deviation is +42.6?g, a deviation less than what a normal analytical balance can reliably discrimnate. This is within specs of ASTM class 1, but would be out of specs of E2.
As a general good practice, I suggest always listing:
Balance make, model, type and serial number. Other identifying information i.e. biochem lab rm 23, asset tag 6969. Technician name and signature. Room temperature. Any unusual conditions noted by tech (i.e. print key broken)
Weight Class (OIML F1, F2, etc) and its serial number(so its record or the actual piece can be checked out if needed later), room temperature, technician name, date/time.
When you note the class, it can be assumed that uncertainty of the test weight is within what is permitted for that class and the idea is that the accuracy if reference is more certain than the instrument.
