## 1 Introduction  
The fuel industry is fundamentally dependent on the uniform interpretation and application of mass and volume measurement methods. This uniformity is not only a technical aspect; it is essential to ensure fair transactions and transparent pricing, which in turn promotes trust between companies, regulators, and investors and fosters a stable and reliable market [1]. In essence, accurate metrology is the foundation for economic equilibrium in the oil sector [2]. Research has continuously addressed this need by improving oil metering methods to increase accuracy [3] and by utilizing advanced data analysis to provide better insights into fuel consumption patterns, trends, and optimization opportunities [4]. Referenced articles delineate best practices for accurately determining true volume or mass values in commercial transactions [5], while other researchers emphasize the critical need for conformity assessment [6] and strategies to mitigate erroneous assessments during petroleum product transfer [7]. However, a significant gap remains in the comprehensive analysis of strategies to reduce accounting losses directly attributable to fundamental differences in measurement methods [5; 8]. Our study addresses this gap. In standard fuel quantity acceptance and transfer processes, quantity is evaluated using volumetric, gravimetric, and geometric methods. The constant recalculations between volume and mass, driven by available equipment or software, introduce complexity. Each measurement instrument category possesses distinct and variable error characteristics, and while instruments comply with legal requirements, their inherent accuracy differences, especially between static and dynamic modes (e.g., dynamic mass systems ranging from 0.2 to 2% [9]), create an environment ripe for discrepancies. This variability and the resulting measurement errors directly disrupt the economic symmetry of transactions. Even seemingly small errors, when applied to the large volumes common in the petroleum industry, can create a significant asymmetry where one party experiences a financial gain solely due to measurement inaccuracy, while the other incurs a corresponding loss. To illustrate, consider a company producing 100,000 barrels per day. A seemingly minor 0.1% measurement error translates to 100 barrels. At an oil price of $80 per barrel, this represents a $8000 daily loss. In large-scale transactions involving tankers or pipelines, even small measurement errors can lead to losses of thousands of dollars. Ongoing efforts across various international organizations on standardization, accreditation, and metrology aim to overcome hurdles and achieve greater consistency in fuel measurement practices [10]. By creating international (ISO) and European (CEN) standards, these organizations work to ensure uniform quality and safety in petroleum processes and products [11]. The International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European Cooperation in Legal Metrology (WELMEC), and the European Association of National Metrology Institutes (EURAMET) develop and harmonize metrology guidelines. These guidelines cover issues related to the selection and testing of measuring instruments and encompass the assessment of oil and petroleum product quantities using various methods [12]. Specialized international and national institutions, such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Energy Institute (EI) in London, the National Measurement Institute of Australia (NMIA), and others, play an important role in this regulation process [13; 14]. ASTM is the leading organization working in the oil industry [15]. A practical example of implementing ASTM D1250 in the oil industry is its use in converting the volume of crude oil and petroleum products to standardized conditions [16].