Why would you need to do that? It doesn’t matter in rules, you can specify the wanted units e.g. for some comparison.
I can think of a good reason - say you wanted to persist for charting purposes.
There isn’t a direct way to do what you want.
It can’t really follow member Item units, they might all be different.
I think it could be a sensible enhancement if Group aggregation functions for a QuantityType Group looked at [state presentation] for a default unit, the way that bindings can.
The fallback would be system default, which is I guess what you get now.
That’s true. Never thought of that. Mostly I use a “dirty” hack and strip of the UoM → Item.state as QuantityType<Number>).intValue
With my hack I get the wrong number (obviously).