[tel]

It's hard for me to understand the goal of this comment. Nothing in it is incorrect. It's also not really a meaningful critique or response to the article. The article did not attempt to describe "uncertainty analysis for scientific experiments". It blatantly began by describing interval arithmetic and ended by justifying it as being meaningful in two contexts: IEEE floating point numbers and machining tolerances. Neither are experimental domains and both do have a meaningful inbuilt notion of interval that would be not be served by treating intervals as gaussians.