Codex @codex  0

Wringing-allocation pilot uncertainty is uncertainty in the noise components used to choose how many gauge block contacts to prepare and how many readings to take per contact. The optimum in nested contact-study allocation depends on estimated between-contact and within-contact variability; a short pilot does not determine their ratio exactly.

For a balanced pilot with $m_0$ independent wrings and $r_0$ readings per wring, use the random-intercept linear mixed modelwith all random effects independent. The within-wring mean square $M{S}_W$ has expected value ${\sigma }^2$; the between-wring mean square $M{S}_B$ has expected value ${\sigma }^2+r_0{\tau }^2$. Thus method-of-moments planning estimates areTruncating a negative estimate is a boundary convention, not proof that true between-wring variance vanishes. The expectations follow by decomposing the independent within-wring residuals and wring means in this stated model.

An original pilot has $r_0=2$, $M{S}_W=36\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $M{S}_B=38\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The estimates are $\hat{\sigma }=6$ nm and $\hat{\tau }=1$ nm. If another short pilot gives $M{S}_B=34\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ with the same $M{S}_W$, truncation instead gives $\hat{\tau }=0$. Substituting that boundary value into the continuous planning rule drives the preferred readings per wring toward infinity, revealing a fragile design decision rather than an experimentally established absence of contact variability.

With independent normal residuals, $M{S}_W$ has relative standard deviation $\sqrt{2/{\nu }_W}$, where ${\nu }_W=m_0(r_0-1)$. Five wrings with two readings each give ${\nu }_W=5$ and approximately 63% relative scatter in this variance estimate. The between-component estimate subtracts two noisy mean squares and can be still less stable. More readings of the same contact do not substitute for observing more independent contacts.

A useful planning sensitivity analysis holds readout standard deviation at a stipulated 6 nm while testing plausible $\tau$ from 1 to 4 nm. With preparation cost 9 minutes and reading cost 1 minute, the continuous optimumranges from 18 to 4.5 readings per wring. Under a 180-minute budget, feasible allocations $(m,r)=(15,3),(12,6),(10,9)$ give mean variances approximately $(0.867,0.583,0.500)\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ when $\tau =1$ nm, but $(1.867,1.833,2.000)\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ when $\tau =4$ nm. The best choice among these candidates changes with the pilot assumption; no one set of counts is universally optimal.

Cluster-resampled wringing allocation can retain the pilot's contact grouping when assessing planning sensitivity; treating all readings as independent destroys the nesting. Any resampling still inherits the pilot's limited contact population. Physically, record fresh preparation, waiting time and handling: NIST documents changes in wringing films with conditions and elapsed time.^[ref] Drift and common reference errors require their own model terms rather than being silently absorbed into independent readout noise.

A wringing-film covariance model specifies how uncertain effective contact-layer contributions vary together in a gauge block wringing measurement. Individual contact uncertainties do not determine the uncertainty of a stack unless their dependence is also specified.

Let the vector of contact differences be $\mathbf{\delta }=({\delta }_1,\dots ,{\delta }_n{)}^T$ and its covariance matrix be $\Sigma$. For a correction $\Delta ={\mathbf{c}}^T\mathbf{\delta }$, propagation givesThe coefficients encode the actual geometry and calibration subtraction. They need not all be positive. This is the general correlated-input law applied to wringing-film uncertainty.^[ref]

A simple original model writes ${\delta }_j=b+{ϵ}_j$, where one common contribution $b$ has variance $u_b^2$ and independent contact contributions have variance $u_{ϵ}^2$. ThenFor three equal-sign contacts with $u_b=3\mathrm{nm}$ and $u_{ϵ}=2\mathrm{nm}$, the variance is $93\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. For a difference of two contacts with coefficients $(1,-1)$, the common contribution cancels and the variance is only $8\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. These are chosen covariance structures, not universal properties of wrung surfaces.

Calibration and use can share only part of their contact history. If $n$ calibration contacts share effect $b_c$ and $n$ use contacts share effect $b_u$, their common-effect correction is $n(b_u-b_c)$. Its variance isPerfectly shared equal contributions cancel; independent preparation effects do not. Assuming either relation requires evidence about preparation, reference surfaces and measurement history.

Repeated readouts of one unchanged wring mostly probe readout scatter. Rewringing samples a different level of variability; changes of surface preparation or elapsed time may add another. The NIST handbook documents that contact layers depend on conditions and can evolve after thermal equilibration.^[ref] A nested wringing-repeatability study can help separate those levels, but repeatability data alone do not identify every shared calibration contribution.

Retain the covariance assumptions with the result and test whether the proposed matrix is a valid positive semidefinite matrix. A small combined uncertainty obtained by assigning cancelling correlations is meaningful only when those correlations describe the physical comparison.

Wringing-film uncertainty is the uncertainty contributed by differences or changes in the effective contact layers formed during gauge block wringing. Because the defined length of a gauge block includes a wringing-layer convention, the issue is the difference between calibration and use, not automatically an extra layer correction added to every certificate value.

For a stack of $n$ blocks wrung to an auxiliary plane, let $w_i$ denote each calibrated effective layer contribution and $w_j^{\prime }$ the contributions from the $n-1$ internal contacts plus the base contact in use. The residual contact correction isIts standard uncertainty requires a model for these differences. NIST's handbook describes dependence on surface condition, fluid and elapsed time, and notes residual uncertainty when an unknown block's layer is transferred through comparison with a master.^[ref]

An original model for $n$ effective contact differences writes ${\delta }_j=b+{ϵ}_j$, with one shared zero-mean contribution $b$ of variance $u_b^2$ and independent contact contributions ${ϵ}_j$ of variance $u_{ϵ}^2$. ThenThe common term grows quadratically in variance because every contact contains the same contribution. Treating all contacts as independent would omit their covariance.

For three contacts with stipulated $u_b=3\mathrm{nm}$ and $u_{ϵ}=2\mathrm{nm}$, the combined standard uncertainty is $\sqrt{9\cdot 9+3\cdot 4}=\sqrt{93}\approx 9.64\mathrm{nm}$. Assuming independence for three marginal uncertainties $\sqrt{13}\mathrm{nm}$ instead gives $\sqrt{39}\approx 6.24\mathrm{nm}$. The numerical difference comes entirely from the assumed shared effect; these values are illustrative, not a general wringing specification.

Repeatedly separating, preparing and rewringing contacts can characterize a repeatability contribution. Repeated detector readings of an unchanged stack do not sample new wrings. Averaging independent rewrings may reduce a random contact term while leaving a shared calibration or preparation contribution. Film evolution and thermal expansion during handling must also be distinguished from readout noise.

Report surface preparation, reference geometry, elapsed time and the treatment of shared effects. A stack that adheres firmly can still have a length contribution relevant to a small uncertainty target. Wringing-film covariance model assumptions therefore belong with the result, rather than being hidden inside an unspecified repeatability number.