What the measurement did not include

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

The chair’s width fitted the gap beside my desk. I measured the gap twice and felt unusually organised when I ordered it. At home, the chair fitted exactly where I had planned, but its arms would not pass beneath the desk. The number I had checked was correct. It simply did not answer every question about using the chair there.

I arranged a return and took the desk height as well as the gap width to the shop. Trying another chair at a table helped me notice where my own earlier test had stopped. I had not needed a more exact version of the same measurement. I needed to include another part of the arrangement before letting one successful number stand for the whole fit.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

The storage box held the number of litres I wanted, so I expected it to replace the smaller box beneath the bed. When it arrived, it was taller and narrower. Its total capacity matched the description perfectly, but the lid touched the bed frame before I could slide it into place.

I checked the outside dimensions of the next box and compared them with the available space. The larger capacity had not been an invented claim. It measured a useful feature that I had treated as if it also measured shape. I kept a note of the height limit beside the capacity I preferred, giving two different questions their own answers rather than making one number carry them both.

Both texts describe the limitations of the measurements.

What similarities do the limitations of the measurements share in these extracts? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.