Repeated Standardized Interdisciplinary Testing of Viability Metrology: Assessing Reproducibility and Comparability of Measurements

This article presents a repeated standardized interdisciplinary test of viability metrology following the introduction of the indicator-standardization architecture developed in G35. The analysis revisits the four empirical domains examined in G34: U.S. electricity distribution, the Great Barrier Reef, NHS England, and the Worldwide Governance Indicators. Whereas G34 primarily tested whether a common architecture of viability inquiry could retain operational meaning across systems of different nature, G36 examines the reproducibility, traceability, comparability, and admissibility of the resulting measurements when subjected to stricter standardization requirements. For each domain, the analysis distinguishes observable variables, raw viability indicators, admissible standardized transformations, reference conditions, uncertainty, comparability, and domain-specific limitations. The retest demonstrates that standardization does not necessarily increase the number of numerical results. In several cases it instead restricts interpretation by revealing that an apparently convenient transformation would require insufficiently justified reference values or would create false cross-domain equivalence. For the U.S. electricity-distribution pilot, the underlying reliability observations and the distinction between baseline performance and major-event burden are reproducible, while an absolute standardized viability indicator is not calculated in the absence of independently justified normalization anchors. For the Great Barrier Reef, comparable observations of hard coral cover permit reproducible calculation of a component-specific Recovery Fraction (RF), while this measure cannot be interpreted as the viability of the reef system as a whole. For NHS England, the retest distinguishes improvement in long-duration waiting indicators from attainment of an established service target, demonstrating that improvement in one function does not constitute system-wide recovery. For the Worldwide Governance Indicators, profile and trajectory analysis remain methodologically usable, but transformation into a universal institutional viability score is rejected because the necessary system definition, reference structure, and interpretive model are insufficient for such an inference. The principal result of G36 is therefore not numerical unification. It is increased metrological discipline. The study introduces Standardization Retest (SRt), Standardization Gain (SG), Standardization Restriction (SR), Reference Sufficiency Test (RST), Reference Sufficiency Class (RSC), Metrological Refusal Rule (MRR), Interdisciplinary Standardization Ceiling (ISC), Cross-Domain Standardization Success (CDSS), Target Attainment Ratio (TAR), Denominator Preservation Rule (DPR), and Raw-Value Preservation (RVP). It further distinguishes Reproducibility of Observation, Reproducibility of Transformation, Profile Reproducibility, and Interpretive Reproducibility. The findings suggest that rigorous interdisciplinary viability metrology should be evaluated not by how many heterogeneous observations can be converted into a common numerical scale, but by how reliably it can determine what may be standardized, what must remain domain-specific, and what should not yet be reduced to a common number. Keywords: Vitology; viability; viability metrology; standardization; reproducibility; comparability; interdisciplinary measurement; VISF; VIP; SVI; standardization retest; measurement uncertainty; normalization; regeneration; Great Barrier Reef; NHS England; electricity reliability; Worldwide Governance Indicators; metrological portability.