Don't really understand what the business process is but I think there are some design errors here. I interpret your post as
For 1 analysis you perform many tests by measuring one parameter per test (e.g. width) using multiple methods (e.g. use tape measure + use micrometer).
In that case, you have 1 analysis based on many tests based on one parameter using multiple methods (1 to 1 to 1 to many). Your relationships allow for many parameters for one test. Also, it seems that parameters ought to be linked to methods. Not seeing the need for the junction table in that case.
Your design is very difficult to follow (at least for me) because you have all these ID <> fieldName links that are confusing when you don't know the business. Better to adopt a naming convention like ParamID_PK linked to ParamID_FK or ParamID linked to ParamIDfk if you want to default to PK when not in the name. Also, I'd base forms on queries, not tables for multiple reasons, one being it's so much easier to filter records as you are asking for. Here, you're loading the whole table.Then there is the combo columns - user is picking one parameter and seeing the same description. When looking at Alluminio in the combo, how do I know which of the 4 I'm looking at? You should show UM as well?
Very important: don't bind combos to fields when using them for searching/filtering. You might think you're just filtering by making selections when in fact you are altering the underlying data.
If you believe your design is correct then try linking the subform Child and main form fields to something other than what you have. Maybe Parameters?
The more we hear silence, the more we begin to think about our value in this universe.
Paraphrase of Professor Brian Cox.