Comment by namibj

My fine spice recipe writing scale (20g max, 20k count) consistently over years of me having it keeps it's magnitude calibration of the 10g reference to a single digit count, i.e., comfortably within +-0.1%.

Ofc there's auto-zero on start involved, but translated to a people bathroom scale that'd be "comfortably better than +-100g".

A precise bathroom scale just would want a bit more effort on drift prevention as a sample mass at this scale is rather unwieldy, and critically it'd need a toe-operated button to select that you've finished climbing onto the scale, upon which it starts averaging the load to progressively improve the weight measurement accuracy. I'd expect using a bounce-height-freefall-duration based length of timing uncertainty at the start and end of the averaging period to allow proper Bayesian uncertainty quantification of the shown result, say by displaying both the 10th and the 90th percentile on the display which grow closer as you wait while standing on it.

With some cleverness a compact calibration mass might be usable to calibrate absolute scale, transferring up to the "people" range using just a random assortment of stuff that fits on the platform, totalling around 10kg.

Because building the scale to be linear in response good enough for 20k count of resolution is pretty straight-forward.