A practical explanation of why localized edge results must remain tied to their tested positions and cannot represent an entire cutting edge.
One edge can contain different local conditions
A cutting edge is continuous, but a test result is usually local. The heel, middle, curved portion, and tip may differ in geometry, accessibility, wear, or preparation. Recording only one location can conceal those differences. Dividing the edge into defined sections preserves the connection between each observation and the place from which it came.
Coverage must be explicit
A useful record identifies the sample, its batch when applicable, the boundaries of each section, the measured positions, and the length or proportion actually covered. Results should then be reported section by section. Untested spaces must remain visibly untested; they should not be filled by inference or absorbed into an average.
This distinction is especially important when a favorable local result is presented. A result from the middle of an edge establishes performance only for that tested area under the stated conditions. It does not by itself establish the condition of the heel, tip, or complete edge.
Sampling answers a limited question
The NIST Engineering Statistics Handbook explains that acceptance sampling uses information from a sample to support a decision about a lot; its main purpose is not to estimate every aspect of lot quality. The same boundary applies spatially: selected edge locations can support conclusions about those locations and a defined sampling decision, but they do not become a complete edge map.
A credible presentation therefore shows the section plan alongside the results, identifies omissions, and limits its conclusion to the tested samples and covered positions. Broader claims require broader, documented coverage.
Can one overall average describe the entire edge?
Only if the underlying section results, coverage, and variation are also disclosed. An average alone can hide weak or untested areas.