> Either it can or it cannot be done as it has been defined.
You can't define everything precisely--and inaccuracy may not lead to failure--just suboptimal results.
My favorite example of this was a semiconductor fabrication lab in college. There were 4 or 5 masks which have the step of "Align masks on lithography machine using alignment marks on silicon and expose photresist".
Okaaaaay. No big deal, you're putting lines and crosses in the center of other lines and crosses visually through a stereo microscope. Humans do that well.
Erm, that lithography machine is possibly older than the professor and likely hasn't been maintained in about the same timeframe.
So, the vernier screws have an enormous amount of backlash. If you've used shitty guitar tuners, you know how to deal with this. If you haven't, you spend a lot of time being frustrated figuring out what backlash is and how to deal with it. Okay, that's lab technique.
However, if even if you do know about backlash, this wastes time on a piece of equipment which is already time constrained. If you actually know something about semiconductors and think a bit about the process, you realize that Mask 2 is the crucial alignment because it defines your critical dimensions and screwing it up will haunt you while you can be a little more cavalier about the other masks. So, you spend way more time fighting the machine on Mask 2 to get it right (because it's important) and you spend less time on the rest. That's also lab technique.
Finally, if you're paranoid, you test the measurement equipment and calibrate it every single time you enter the lab. You note the serial numbers of the broken ones and only use the ones that reliably give correct measurements.
Your prize for this level of lab technique is that your transistor gives gorgeous graphs and works exactly like the lab claims it should while everybody else gets mushy results, at best.