Probably not. The figures should be interpreted with caution, especially if an instrument has not been independently calibrated for some time.

From the purchasers point of view it would be helpful if specification figures given in measuring instrument sales literature were determined impartially and rigorously but the main aim of such literature is, of course, to promote sales. This can cause 'headline' performance figures to be massaged such that they look better than those of competing devices. It might, of course, be that the better figures do indeed represent better measurement capabilities but it is not always so. Misunderstandings can be caused, for example, when a headline number leaves out factors that will increase the uncertainty (reduce the accuracy) of an instrument when it is in service (such as the likely changes in performance with time), not making it clear that quoted performance figures are only possible if the device is calibrated very frequently, used in near-ideal conditions and its readings are corrected using the new calibration data, or using a low statistical coverage factor without saying so.

Many purchasers decide which items to buy on the basis of headline performance figures in manufacturers' specification sheets. This encourages manufacturers to find ways of reducing them, to numerically undercut their competitors, and a spiral can be created. An extreme example is in the field of vacuum metrology where competing manufacturers have for many years vied with each other to claim the best performance (lowest uncertainties) for their state-of-the-art secondary devices. As a result they quote performance figures that are significantly better than the world's best primary vacuum standards held in national measurement institutes. This is an impossibility of course and the manufacturers admit so in private (the uncertainty of their devices has to come from traceability to a primary standard and cannot therefore better its uncertainty). But none is prepared to be the first to publish metrologically realistic figures because, they say, they will lose customers to the less metrologically robust numbers quoted by their competitors.