This user's problem is exactly the kind of friction that holds teams back when they outgrow static spreadsheets. They have two systems, two validation ranges, and one form that should handle both. The solution isn't a longer nested IF, it's a smarter data model.
What this user is describing is a classic sign that their spreadsheet has become a silo. They are manually duplicating logic because the sheet doesn't know which system the data belongs to. The real fix is to treat the bit depth as a parameter, not a hard-coded condition. If the form includes a field for system type, say, a dropdown for 12-bit or 14-bit, then a single validation formula can reference a lookup table with the correct min and max for each system. That table lives on a hidden sheet or another tab, easy to update without touching the formula. The formula itself becomes something like: `IF(OR(F20 < VLOOKUP(system, rangeTable, 2, FALSE), F20 > VLOOKUP(system, rangeTable, 3, FALSE)), "FAIL", "PASS")`. No nested IFs, no duplicated logic, one form for both systems.
The deeper point here is that validation logic should be data, not code. When you bury ranges inside formulas, every change requires editing cell contents, testing, and hoping you didn't miss a reference. When you externalize those ranges into a small table, you create a single source of truth that anyone on the team can maintain. The spreadsheet becomes more resilient and easier to audit. For teams juggling multiple hardware variants, this pattern scales without pain.
This user is already asking the right question: they wondered about putting limits on a backend page. That instinct is exactly what AI-native tools are designed to support. The next step is to build a structured validation table, connect it to the form, and let the formula do the lookup. The result is a form that adapts to the system, not the other way around. That is the difference between a spreadsheet you fight and a tool that works for you.