# No code mandates numbers

> every threshold is convention, not law

Source: https://geodb.io/guide/topic/qaqc_no_code_mandates_numbers/ · Category: QAQC
Here is the fact that governs everything else in QAQC: **no reporting code
specifies a numeric insertion rate, acceptance threshold, or pass/fail
rule.** CIM's actual wording is only that control samples be inserted
*"frequently enough to provide statistical confidence in the results"*.
NI 43-101, JORC and SK-1300 require **disclosure** — of procedures,
results, pass/fail criteria and corrective actions — never specific
numbers.

Every threshold you have ever been told ("±3SD is a fail", "blanks fail at
10× detection", "insert 5% standards") is **convention, not law**. The
conventions are good ones, built on decades of practice — but a competent
QP can defensibly choose different ones, and different companies do.

## What this means in practice

- When you report QC results, say **which** convention you applied. "2%
  failure rate" means nothing without "at 3SD".
- When two geologists disagree about a threshold, neither is "breaking the
  rules" — there are no numeric rules. Agree on a project convention and
  write it down.
- Your database should let you **configure** the thresholds per project,
  and record what was in force when each batch was judged.

## In geoDB

geoDB ships with the common conventions as defaults — standards judged at
2σ (warn) and 3σ (fail) against certified values, duplicates at 20% RPD
(10% for pulp/lab duplicates), blanks against per-element warning limits
you configure. Projects can override several of these: **QC insertion
protocols** carry your planned insertion rules, per-element duplicate
thresholds can be set on the project, and blank warning limits are fully
yours to define. Where a default is not yet configurable, treat it as
geoDB asserting a convention — a reasonable one, but a convention.