Division 3 For each validated carcass, the median of the results of the members of the jury shall be considered as the correct grade of that carcass.
United Kingdom
To estimate the performance of the automated grading method, the results of the automated grading method shall, for each validated carcass, be compared to the median of the results of the jury. The resulting accuracy of the grading by automated grading methods is established by using a system of points that are attributed as follows:
| Conformation | Fat cover | |
|---|---|---|
| No error | 10 | 10 |
| Error of one unit (i.e. one subclass up or down) | 6 | 9 |
| Error of two units (i.e. two subclasses up or down) | – 9 | 0 |
| Error of three units (i.e. three subclasses up or down) | – 27 | – 13 |
| Error of more than three units (i.e. more than three subclasses up or down) | – 48 | – 30 |
With a view to authorisation, the automated grading methods should achieve at least 60 % of the maximum number of points for both conformation and fat cover.
In addition, the classification by using the automated grading methods must be within the following limits:
| Conformation | Fat cover | |
|---|---|---|
| Bias | ± 0,30 | ± 0,60 |
| Slope of the regression line | 1 ± 0,15 | 1 ± 0,30 |
Where during an authorisation test more than one carcass presentation is used, the differences between those carcass presentations shall not lead to differences in the classification results.