## 6 Results and Discussion  
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of the measurements performed by the operators and the different variables calculated in the assessment of repeatability and reproducibility. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & & & & &  
Figure 10 displays a comparison of the results for the standard deviations for repeatability (SDr) and reproducibility (SDR) involving the different configurations of surface defects, with each surface having a specific theoretical volume of defects. The standard deviations for repeatability (SDr) and reproducibility (SDR) were generally consistent across configurations. A comparison of the results shows that the standard deviation for reproducibility (SDR) was slightly lower than the standard deviation for repeatability (SDr) for each configuration, suggesting that the variability between operators was slightly lower than the variability of repeated measurements by the same operator. The relatively low values indicated good accuracy and greater repeatability and reproducibility in measurements for these configurations. * Configuration C1: The standard deviations for repeatability and reproducibility were relatively low for this configuration (SDr = 0.44, SDR = 0.34). This suggests high precision and consistency between repeated measurements and across operators. * Configuration C2: The standard deviations remained low (SDr: 0.29, SDR: 0.23), indicating that even for smaller defect volumes, the measurement method maintained good precision and acceptable repeatability and reproducibility. * Configuration C3: The standard deviations for repeatability and reproducibility were consistent with those of the previous configurations (SDr: 0.45, SDR: 0.35). The \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Operators**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Specimens**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & C1 & C2 & C3 & C4 \\ \hline A & SDr & 0.37 & 0.30 & 0.42 & 0.40 \\ \hline B & SDr & 0.51 & 0.29 & 0.49 & 0.43 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Mean SDr} & 0.44 & 0.29 & 0.45 & 0.41 \\ \hline A & \multirow{2}{*}{SDR} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.34} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.23} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.35} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.28} \\ \cline{2-6} B & & & & & \\ \hline A & CVr \% & 1.57 & 4.33 & 3.48 & 1.53 \\ \hline B & CVr \% & 2.12 & 4.39 & 3.90 & 1.62 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Mean CVr \%} & 1.84 & 4.36 & 3.69 & 1.57 \\ \hline A & \multirow{2}{*}{CVR \%} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.43} & \multirow{2}{*}{3.40} & \multirow{2}{*}{3.84} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.06} \\ \cline{2-6} B & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Standard deviation (SDr, SDR) and coefficient of variation (CVr, CVR) of the measurements for each specimen. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c} **SDI** \\ **RMP** \\ **Applied** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
1 & 147.5 & 23.78 & 42.34 & 116.0 & 6.71 & 11.95 & 127.4 & 128.88 & 22.93 & 153.6 & 27.09 & 48.24 \\ \hline
2 & 148.8 & 24.49 & 43.61 & 115.3 & 6.33 & 11.27 & 126.9 & 12.62 & 22.47 & 151.8 & 26.11 & 46.49 \\ \hline
3 method maintained its precision, repeatability, and reproducibility for a moderate defect volume. * Configuration C4: Once again, the standard deviations remained low (SDr: 0.41, SDR: 0.28), suggesting that even for larger defect volumes, the method maintained high precision and satisfactory repeatability and reproducibility. From the comparison results shown in Figure 10b, it is demonstrated that the CVr % (coefficient of variation of repeatability) values were slightly higher than the corresponding CVR % (coefficient of variation of reproducibility) values for all of the specimens. This suggests that the variability in measurements taken by the same operator (CVr) for a specific specimen was slightly higher than the variability observed when different operators measured the same specimen (CVR). The two indicators of variability were nearly identical, implying a high level of measurement reliability.