Abstract
Inter-laboratory comparisons use the best available transfer standards to check the participants' uncertainty analyses, identify underestimated uncertainty claims or unknown measurement biases, and improve the global measurement system. For some measurands, instability of the transfer standard can lead to an inconclusive comparison result. If the transfer standard uncertainty is large relative to a participating laboratory's uncertainty, the commonly used standardized degree of equivalence ≤ 1 criterion does not always correctly assess whether a participant is working within their uncertainty claims. We show comparison results that demonstrate this issue and propose several criteria for assessing a comparison result as passing, failing, or inconclusive. We investigate the behavior of the standardized degree of equivalence and alternative comparison measures for a range of values of the transfer standard uncertainty relative to the individual laboratory uncertainty values. The proposed alternative criteria successfully discerned between passing, failing, and inconclusive comparison results for the cases we examined.