Any easy way to load 2 types of probe setup parameter?

You could have two different probe files associated to the same physical probe build.  One could be your "low accuracy" probe, using your current calibration settings and the other could be your "high accuracy" probe, using more hits & levels. 

You could also save 2 different parameter sets, one for each collection of settings.

As Neil Challinor  said, I would use 2 different parameter sets.

Do you really see much difference between 9 hits on 3 levels over something with more hits/levels, while using a TP20?  Just thinking it is more accurate with more hits/levels doesn't make it so.  You need to test it.  Simply calibrate A0B0 with 9/3 (with sphere has NOT moved) then do it again with the more/more (NOT moved) and see if you can see enough difference to justify more=better.

Right for the number of hits, but he could also change the speed (calibration and measure).

I don't use  often TP20 or tesastar-p, the number of hits is more important on LSPX or SPxx...

Thank you. Yes I am testing this morning step by step.

First I started to test re-measure and 2 DCC mode, later I will use Iterative alignment to look at the different.

I might start to work with disc which is the rotation part of seat structure.  The precision could be below 0.05 mm comparing TP 2mm ( 10% is 0.2mm for variation current I work with now).

This is an 35 year old  Mitutoyo in the lab, I have a 3 years old Golbal S 

That's a decent idea

Our typical alignment process is: Datum B( Circle or round slot), Datum C ( Circle or slot), Datum A ( Plane), then alignment: Level to A, rotate B to C to axis about Datum A's

transfer to Circle B and Plane A 

Today I got

Since Datum C TP was out, and Dev X Y Z were all different.

I wonder if I use Iterative alignment tommorow, Should I get a better TP ( Lower number)?  

I think Iterative alignment is to move the XYZ to a better position, where DEV x y z could be minimized to certain method.

Thank you 

Firstly, are you sure your NOMINAL (THEO) values are correct - do they match the CAD co-ordinates or what is shown on your drawing?

Second, when you rotate from one circle to another, the axis you rotated to should have zero deviation - none of your deviations for CIR_CC are zero so I assume you must be either adding an angular rotation offset or you are aligning to a constructed offset line.  What does your drawing show?

Third, CIR_CC is out of position because the distance between the two holes is not correct.  Changing the alignment method may change the deviation values for each axis but it would not change the overall TP value significantly.  For example, doing an iterative alignment, as you suggest, would probably just evenly distribute the total deviation between the two axes that weren't levelled (because an iterative alignment is a form of best-fit).

Thank you Neil Challinor for explanation about iterative alignment.

I used 2 DCC, after DCC checked PLN_A CIR_B and CIR_C, I created A7 which was same as A8_ABC. Then I measured those 3 features again. Then formed A8_ABC.  I attached with screen shot, still not good at post codes yet.

Yes, you are right, it was not matched. Thank you again.

I am not sure but variation might came from adding or deleting  alignment