I just discussed this with my mom for half an hour. :D (math prof.) She explained to me how stupid I am and why my answer does not make sense but in some cases my thoughts actually do, she had to admit in the end. But she definitely pointed out pretty well how misleading my riddle is formulated and that in its currenty form it does indeed not makes sense. Well... 1:0 to her. But...

What I wanted to point out with this is... Sometimes the pure distance between an estimated value and the actual value is not the only factor that defines how representative (or "acturate") that estimated value actually is. Take a situation like this: (actually a topic in Germany because of these Covid protests...)
Let's say the protesters say they were 800k, the police says they were 20k. Huge difference. One of them has to be completely wrong. But who is more wrong or more accurate? The truth is, there were 200k. So what number is more representative for the actual real value. Does 20k represent 200k more or is 800k better? Actually the distance between 20k and 200k (180k) is less than the distance between 800k and 200k (600k), and yet you could argue that 800k is the more representative value because its relation to the actual value is more actuate. 800k is only 4x 200k while 200k is 10x 20k. Know what I mean?