Understanding Profile of A Line Report

This isn't how it is done anymore, however, it was in your version interpreted (at least by Hexagon) that Y14.5 profile was to be reported as the amount of delta between high and low (in your case .050) AND reported with a locational component to that range, in your case shifted sideways a bit.

So, you have a .060 range, that is +/- .030 from nominal.
Your high is + .034.
You low is -.016.
.034 is out of print by .004.
The delta between .034 and -.016 is .050.

If you were using GeoTol, this would be reported as .068 instead of .050, and still show as .004 out of print to that one point. (GeoTol might say .008 out of print, but the reality is, your part is .004 out of print at that one point and it is plus material (presuming you have the in/out defined so PcDmis can tell), sand it and it will be in print).

The math is REALLY stupidly confusing in Y14.5.1 for this, instead of saying worst error from nominal times two like normal human beings, it is (this math works IDENTICAL) the difference from the high limit to the worst reading, doubled and removed from the tolerance zone (tough to write in english). For this example, you are .004 from the limit, and you are out, so it is a negative .004. Muliply by two gives you negative .008. Subtract that from the tolerance of .060, but you are subtracting a negative, which equates to addition, .060 - -.008 = .068.
I think I wrote that accurately.

If you take the worst reading and muliply that delta from nominal by two, you get the same answer with a LOT less headache. Worst is .034, times two, gives .068. That is with the 2019 Y14.5.1 which explicitly controls the 2009 Y14.5 standard.

Do it, even with your older version of PcDmis, in ISO instead of ASME, you'll get .068 as well, and they even define it with the sensible easy math... at least that's my understanding, I don't do ISO.

Regardless of the math and reporting, your max hit is .034 and you are allowed +/- .030, so you have a problem with the area around hit 5.

This isn't how it is done anymore, however, it was in your version interpreted (at least by Hexagon) that Y14.5 profile was to be reported as the amount of delta between high and low (in your case .050) AND reported with a locational component to that range, in your case shifted sideways a bit.

So, you have a .060 range, that is +/- .030 from nominal.
Your high is + .034.
You low is -.016.
.034 is out of print by .004.
The delta between .034 and -.016 is .050.

If you were using GeoTol, this would be reported as .068 instead of .050, and still show as .004 out of print to that one point. (GeoTol might say .008 out of print, but the reality is, your part is .004 out of print at that one point and it is plus material (presuming you have the in/out defined so PcDmis can tell), sand it and it will be in print).

The math is REALLY stupidly confusing in Y14.5.1 for this, instead of saying worst error from nominal times two like normal human beings, it is (this math works IDENTICAL) the difference from the high limit to the worst reading, doubled and removed from the tolerance zone (tough to write in english). For this example, you are .004 from the limit, and you are out, so it is a negative .004. Muliply by two gives you negative .008. Subtract that from the tolerance of .060, but you are subtracting a negative, which equates to addition, .060 - -.008 = .068.
I think I wrote that accurately.

If you take the worst reading and muliply that delta from nominal by two, you get the same answer with a LOT less headache. Worst is .034, times two, gives .068. That is with the 2019 Y14.5.1 which explicitly controls the 2009 Y14.5 standard.

Do it, even with your older version of PcDmis, in ISO instead of ASME, you'll get .068 as well, and they even define it with the sensible easy math... at least that's my understanding, I don't do ISO.

Regardless of the math and reporting, your max hit is .034 and you are allowed +/- .030, so you have a problem with the area around hit 5.

The growth parameter g used in the actual value definition for profile of a surface allows for the tolerance to expand or contract in an attempt to locate the largest deviation. The "deviation times two" is encoded in the definition when the growth parameter is multiplied by two. A definition of "take the worst reading and multiply that delta from nominal by two" isn't robust, mathematically speaking, and involves some level of personal interaction. The new definition takes the personal interaction out and offers a standard algorithmic approach to determining the measured value.