I’m going to take “silly idea” off my earlier one. Which is worse – adding an additional decimal place if the rest of the report has numbers with one, or adding asterisks and footnotes? Do the numbers differ if you add one decimal place?
In rigorous environments, the number of decimal places reported is chosen deliberately based on the precision of whatever measurements go into those numbers. You can’t validly just alter the formatting to 2 or 3 decimal places. Doing so would be making an explicit statement about precision that’s logically / factually false.
In more informal environments (i.e. one where the author and the audience are both math/stats amateurs) you *could *do this and get away with it. But it’s still a bad practice.
As bibliophage says, sic means “yes, I meant to write what I wrote.” It is used in quotations to make clear that the transcriber is transcribing an error accurately, and it is used in situations described by the OP as well.
–Cliffy
The problem is, as already noted, that sic is seen so often in the context of a quote that has some glaring error, usually in spelling or grammar, that to most readers it carries the connotation that “yes, I know this is wrong, but I’m quoting it just as said”. Formal meaning doesn’t matter if – as I believe would be the case here – it leaves the reader bewildered or, worse, conveys the opposite of what was intended.*
I concur with the others that the best way to achieve clarity in this kind of situation is through an explicit comment or footnote noting the coincidence in question. Also agree with LSLGuy that tacking on an extra decimal point could imply a misleading level of precision.
*Which is not at all the same as rejecting incorrect usage simply because it’s common, a different discussion we’ve had here from time to time! 
Thank you, that makes sense. I am used to dollar amounts where a percent is a percent!
Actually, 29,002 ft.
It’s now known to be 29,029 ft.
Perhaps he was dictating.
“Verbatim” is the fancy word for “I double checked that”… isn’t it ? But it also can imply the same as sic, in that you are merely passing blame for an error … and not making it clear there is no error or copying.
Well we know its a “coincidence” ,its an accidental matching up, but not a word used in editing… well you could put a note below … “These data values are coincidentally the same”
I worked at a newspaper where we used to put [ver] above things that were unbelievable, or spelled funny. However, this was a note to the typesetter, not something that appeared in the paper.
Example: “Cylvia [ver] Hayes was illegally married to an Ethiopian…”
I’m thinking another place used a different abbreviation, but, again, it was just a note that a name, date, or whatever had already been checked. Since of course everything we published was absolutely accurate. It was not “[sic]”–we used that to state that the source was accurately quoted, right or wrong. But usually, wrong–because why would we point out that it was right? I always interpret “[sic]” to mean “this is misspelled/wrong and we know it, but that’s what it says.”
Cylvia [sic] Hayes does not have the same effect, even if it should.
(I always assumed “[ver]” stood for verified, not verbatim.)
I would just put the asterisk with the word “Verified” after it.
Frustrating, but true. I want to start a campaign now to save the true meaning of “[sic]”, but I’m much too busy running around the internet finding ways to insert the word “Autumn” into conversations about "Fall.
Verified, yes. That’s what we always used when copy-editing proposals. And the connotation is more precise to this situation - “I made sure this was accurate” vs “Yes, that’s what I meant to type.”
One problem with using an asterisk is that in certain contexts it means the data is statistically significant. If that’s not true, or not relevant, or hasn’t been tested, you might want to avoid an asterisk.