As someone who's been looking for a good kitchen scale, your typical kitchen scale is actually precise to then nearest gram at best, and in terms of precision it's probably not very precise at all. 0.1g is rare, and these usually cost more, especially if they're actually reliable.
I have the ooni one that i use for my baking and to measure yeast and it was one of the best investments i made.
Obviously if you have the money, you can buy actual certified ASTM weights, but they are insanely expensive.
Of course this is all false precision once you start adding eggs.
Recipes absolutely adjust for the weight of the eggs and some rules of thumb for water and fat content. But that said, a chicken egg is like 55g with 10% tolerance (at least the eggs I buy, and I do everything by weight). 5g of mostly water one way or the other doesn't have a massive amount of impact on the dough, and you can always adjust based on feel after mixing.
At scale everything is measured by weight fairly precisely. But you really don't care about accuracy, since it's the ratios of ingredients that make the product and not the raw amounts.
One thing I found out is that getting calibrated accuracy beyond 0.1% is hard and expensive despite having all that precision.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2012.42
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/measuring-yoctogram-...
In talking about the work done on e. coli, a non spherical cell, it says the methods had to be changed due to "turbulence" attendant to the e. coli's departure from sphericity of the earlier tested yeast cells.
My rough calcs show a Reynolds number in the range of 1e-6. The onset of turbulence happens at Reynolds numbers of ~2300 for pure water. The 1% sugar solution would have a negligibly higher turbulence onset Reynolds number.
I expect the need for different methodology wasn't turbulence, but the difference in drag presented by an elongated e. coli compared to a spherical yeast cell.
http://cnet.com/home/kitchen-and-household/appliance-science... verifies this.
Which, ironically, are both only haploid.
This might sound trivial, but in me sparks a much larger point: which kinds of experimental designs and tests might we miss when engaging in a special science? In establishing dedicated methods I think it's highly likely for there to be low-hanging fruits of experimental setups not considered due to prevalence of these very specific frameworks.