We are introducing "unbounded" quantities, see T115269. This allows more intuitive interaction: if no bounds are entered, no bounds are shown. If bounds were entered, they are always shown. Also, we changed the auto-detection of uncertainty based on the decimal representation to be +/-0.5 of the magnitude of the least significant digit, instead of +/-1 of that magnitude, see T140997.
We want a bot to address both issues:
In the past, bounds where hidden if they were the same as the nominal value (that is, +/-0 uncertainty, indicating an absolutely exact value). Users took advantage of this to suppress display of bounds, even in situations where +/-0 was semantically inappropriate (e.g. for measurements, which are never absolutely exact).
This (ab)use of +/-0 should be fixed by replacing all quantities with +/-0 uncertainty by an unbounded quantity in statements that represent measured or estimated value. Bot runs should be done per-property.
For statements that claim exact counts (number of planets, of atoms, of members of parliament, etc), +/-0 is technically correct, but can be omitted because it is implicit. Whether such statements should be converted to using unbounded quantities is up to the community.
In the past, when no uncertainty was explicitly entered, we estimated an uncertainty of +/-1 times the magnitude of the least significant digit, and stored this. These bounds can lead to incorrect rounding, see T95425. To resolve this, quantities with such bounds should be replaced with unbounded quantities. Note that we cannot know whether the +/-1 was entered explicitly or not, and thus may lose some legitimate bounds, and replace them by "unknown". This is however likely to be rare, at least much rarer than +/-1 actually standing for unknown bounds.
In any case, this should also only be applied per-property, after community discussion.
This should cover values in qualifiers and statements.