Report for probe calibration

Why not come up with your own standard?.

Saw someone use a Ring Gauge once. 

Our check program sets the XYZ of the sphere with the master probe. Then measures the sphere size and location with different probes/angles and reports them out. In a perfect world everything would be 0,0,0 with a perfect diameter.

Our check program sets the XYZ of the sphere with the master probe. Then measures the sphere size and location with different probes/angles and reports them out. In a perfect world everything would be 0,0,0 with a perfect diameter.

yes, I also use this when I do a calibration check on the individual probes to see if they need to be qualified or I can continue.
I thought there was the possibility of having a report that shows you the Standardeviation value and highlights the points that are out of specification in red or with a few ticks. Very often those who analyze the qualification report are operators who have no Cmm experience. So I was looking for a solution that was very easy to interpret even for less experienced people

I guess I am missing the point then, the shop monkeys shouldn't need to understand, that should be your job? "Check program says I'm good, continue to measure" "Check program says I'm not good, calibrate probes or get help" 

If 5 "points" on the cal sphere are bad, then it fails and will need redone so isn't "seeing" kind of a moot point? 

I don't agree with you.
I am of the opinion that every person who uses the measuring machine should have a basic education to understand what they are doing wrong. My idea was only to facilitate the calibration output of the probe just for a better understanding of the report, nothing more.
I thought someone had already tried this route and could give me some ideas

By all means, you educating them on the machine is a good thing. 
Maybe try adding CAD graphics to your normal check program and some snapshots from different angles on the sphere to show the hit variations with 3d arrows?