@DavidK Agreed. This is one of those cases where a significant number of people mix up the meanings (kinda like "could care less" vs. "couldn't care less"): you risk part of your audience misunderstanding your intent.

Here's something, anyway

If the irradiance is higher in the focused state (i.e. the same amount of energy is focused on a smaller area), then this is correct. If the irradiance stays the same then this isn't quite right.

"Scope" in this sense typically refers to the boundaries of a body of information, not physical phenomena. For instance, the scope of a design document might be limited to a specific car part.

Sounds to me like you're trying to define a level of tolerance for when outlying data points are logged. Logging whether the data goes out of bounds at all is zero-tolerance. Anything more than that means you're tolerating some level of outlying data without logging.

Also to whoever downvoted, it's polite to explain why so the answer can be improved. You might think the problem is self-explanatory, but it may not be so for others.

@JoeBlow I'd toss some citations in there to improve your answer. The Free Dictionary has one.

@user662852 Wild. Equally confusing is the "Fine +2 Points." I guess people from Connecticut must know what it means, but how would they enforce against nonresidents? "I'm sorry, but you can't jargon in the hooplah, that's a three point fine." "Oh, sorry, I didn't know." "Nice try buddy, we get that all the time."

This image is a more self-explanatory version of the sign in question. Surprised to see colloquialism on a street sign in either case, personally.

@WS2 "As a society we put names on things far too readily." I'm sure there's a name for thinking that way.

"Parallelly" also rolls off the tongue about as well as a square tire.

+1 for the magic/magical book example, and a metaphysical +1 for the bit about using the shorter adjective.