**6. Conclusions**

We analyzed several measurements and evaluations for demonstration of the SDF existence in the experimental data and their determination with the comparison of different experiments, as well as a simulation of the experimental set-up based on the models of the experiment. In cases when SDF cannot be removed from the results of measurements and considering that the spread of the experimental data has some statistical nature, the USU can be introduced in the evaluation procedure to obtain realistic uncertainties of the evaluated data. SDF can be removed through the corrections introduced in the experimental data, which lead to changes in the evaluated values. The account of the USU changes the uncertainties of the evaluated data but not the evaluated values. The introduction of the USU will not be needed if, after SDF removal, the experimental data are consistent. In cases when SDF exists in the experimental data and cannot be removed, these data, in the process of the evaluation, should be considered as outliers with their uncertainties increased up to the consistency of other experimental data or even excluded from the evaluation.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, N.V.K., V.G.P. and S.M.G.; methodology, N.V.K., V.G.P.; software, N.V.K., V.G.P.; validation, N.V.K., V.G.P. and S.M.G.; formal analysis, N.V.K., V.G.P.; writing original draft preparation, N.V.K., V.G.P.; writing—review and editing, N.V.K., V.G.P. and S.M.G.; visualization, N.V.K., V.G.P. and S.M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This paper was prepared on the basis personal initiative by authors.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
