It competely justify it.

No it doesn't.

I want a proper justificaiton of how you ended up at 0.5% for the data in question.

Again, again and one more time again, you can not get an exact measurement as an error limit. It has to be marked as percentage of anything.

Asserting the same falsehoods wont make it true.

Almost always, the initial measurement will have an error which is an absolute error.

When you measure temperature, you don't get an error to some percentage. You get it to some number of degrees.

When you measure an angle, you don't get an error to some percentage, you get it to some number of degrees or radians.

When you measure a length, you don't get an error to some percentage, you get it to some length.

When you measure a volume, you don't get an error to some percentage, you get it to some volume.

And so on.

You ignoring how these errors work will not help you.

I know how errors work. I'm not the ignorant one here. I know that you are doing it completely wrong.

I know that no amount of searching will help, because there simply is no justification for just using 0.5%.

Plenty of things are made where that kind of error is far too large to be acceptable and would result in the part simply not working.

If you want to lie and pretend that 0.5% is the error limit that should be used in this case rather than 0.01 km you need to justify it.

Until you do, I will continue accepting reality, that 0.01 km is the limit of uncertainty and thus the values provided are clearly using a RE model, not a FE model.