>[There is] a distinction between indicators of the precision of merged data, >and those for the precision of unmerged data.
Let's take a step back - definitions matter: (i) We have multiple observations of the same, already integrated h: the 'unmerged' data <- most important data set which SHOULD BE deposited and rarely is. (ii) Now we weighted average those multiple instances of the same h, sans symmetry: 'merged' data <- still useful to keep, particularly if one gets the metric symmetry/PG wrong (iii) Now we merge symmetry related data (generally keeping Friedels apart): 'unique' data (iv) both (ii) and (iii) are instances of 'merged' data. Is that correct? If so, let’s continue the thread (there is more to come...) or adjust the definitions. Best, BR
