Please provide some pictures including the model being measured showing the height and the measured height in the software. Both pictures are taken at different angles which do not show us any difference.
I had hoped that you could believe me if I said I had measured it :-)
It was not easy to take a picture where the lens curve was not an issue, even on the foto I uploaded it seems just under 16mm but believe me its exact 16mm if you look straight on the edge.
(Same effect as the almost 17mm on the ruler of the 3d model)
But as you can see its a mm different on 17mm what equals to more then 5%
What version M200, firmware, and Z-Suite are you using? There was an issue about a year ago with z-heights being too small, but was fully corrected later on later versions (at least I believe it was).
Probable temporary solution is to add a Z scaling factor of 106.25% in Z-Suite (16mm*1.0625=17mm). To do this, click the Resize Object in Z-Suite, click the padlock to have independent control of each axis, and enter 106.25 in the Z: field
I had hoped that you could believe me if I said I had measured it :-)
It was not easy to take a picture where the lens curve was not an issue, even on the foto I uploaded it seems just under 16mm but believe me its exact 16mm if you look straight on the edge.
(Same effect as the almost 17mm on the ruler of the 3d model)
But as you can see its a mm different on 17mm what equals to more then 5%
Being a 3D Printing Technician my self I have always found hard numbers to overrule a clients thought process. It has nothing to do with you, just years of being told one thing and finding it to be another later.
Do what Pasta mentioned for now until the cause can be found.
The hardware revision would be also interesting. Because the "fix" back then seemed to be limited to replacing the hardwired "V02 trapez screw" (Z-Suite v1.5.x) entry in the header with a "V01 V03 ball screw entry" (>= v1.6.x) while Z-Suite versions before 1.5 let you actually choose the hardware revision.
No, 1.7.2.1 still writes a hardwired "V01 V03 ball screw" to the header entry. What I meant was: if the m200 really uses that information from the header to apply some kind of internal Z fix to compensate some difference between trapez screw and ball screw and changing the fixed trapez screw entry to a fixed ball screw entry fixed the Z issue for all ball screw owners, it might have as well screwed it up for trapez screw owners.
Keep in mind though that this theory is merely based on my observation that the wrong Z height issue came up with v1.5.x and was said to be resolved with v1.6.x.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that the header entry was also changed with v1.5.x and v1.6.x but certain other aspects led to believe that it might as well be a causality.
@Brett90: a chance to get the ZCode file for phorensic analysis?
So much about this theory then. I'm too lazy and cheap to print it myself but I'm pretty sure I printed a calibration cube some time ago that was quite accurate.
I'm not a mechanics guy so someone else might utter a better hypothesis, but maybe your Z stepper is skipping steps?
There are some quite a visible layer artifact on the lower left and a bit higher on the right of the hole which are not there in the Z-Suite preview.
I had the same problem on a 4.125" tall print. Not critical on the print because it was just decorative, but still a problem. Printed in Z-ABS it only came out at 4.075 tall. v4 machine 1.0 firmware 1.7.2.1 Z-suite
Hint 1: divide 17 by 114 and make your own assumptions about the actual layer height. Matter has been discussed several times before, but Z seems unhappy if this comes up.
Hint 2: I have magic glasses. Nah, again, this was discussed before, but I was asked not to flaunt. You are invited to reflect about my avatar image though.