Random error, systematic error, limitations, and mistakes
Classify an issue from observed evidence, connect it to an affected quantity or claim, and correct mistakes instead of relabeling them as limitations.
Random error affects repeatability
Random variation produces unpredictable differences across repeated measurements. Replication and summary statistics can characterize it, but a generic list of possible sources is not evidence that one affected this experiment.
Systematic error can shift measurements
A calibration offset or consistent procedural bias can move results in one direction. Repetition alone does not remove that bias; compare controls, standards, calibration records, and method evidence.
Limitations bound interpretation
Sample size, range, available controls, instrument capability, and model assumptions can constrain what the results support even when the procedure was followed correctly.
Mistakes are correctable
A transcription, unit-conversion, arithmetic, or labeling mistake should be corrected and propagated through dependent sections. For any remaining limitation or error source, state the affected quantity, expected direction when known, and supporting evidence.
- Do not call every discrepancy human error.
- Do not claim a direction without evidence.
- Do not use random and systematic as synonyms.
Sources and boundaries
Solice develops LabCrux. The independent sources above do not sponsor or endorse the product. This page explains a review method; your experimental evidence, course instructions, and instructor remain authoritative.