First, I'd check if there's some style guide for the publication you are trying to publish in. If they have relevant guidance, that would override any general conventions.
Failing that, the convention in most scientific writing is that any number is assumed to be accurate to 1/2 of the magnitude of the last digit written. For example, if you write 182.04, then the real value is somewhere between 182.035 and 182.045. That's why, in scientific papers, 82.0 is not the same as 82.00. The second implies reliability to one more digit.
When this general assumption doesn't apply, it is routine to write the number followed by "+/-" and the actual accuracy. Like "182.4 +/-0.2".
I see you have several examples where the possible plus is different from the possible minus. I'm not aware of any generally accepted convention to express this. If someone else on here knows of one, I'd be interested to hear it. Barring that, I think you'd have to invent a notation and explain it. Perhaps something like "182.4 +.1/-.2"? Sometimes writers give a range, like "value between 32.6 and 84.7". But that's probably less information than giving a number and an error range, as when you give a number, we generally assume that while it is not absolutely precise, that is the most likely value.
I suppose your sub/superscript method is such an invented notation. I THINK I get what you're saying, though some of your examples seem unlikely. Like 11.8 with +50 and -50? Like, you measured 11.8, but the real number could be from -38.2 to +61.8? The error could be 4 times the measured value? If that's not what you mean, you definitely need some explanation.