> I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud? They could know the formula was wrong - inherently every measurem

> I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud? They could know the formula was wrong - inherently every measurement is wrong to some extent which is why you see a +/- error, that is not fraud. For it to be fraud, they would need to measure it in the way they claim to, get a result they dont like, and report it as <5% anyway (with intent to defraud people). Which could happen in theory, but seems highly unlikely.