Well, what are you telling me? Is this source faulty? Or perhaps are there other measurement units used outside NASA and aerospace?
The shock waves under consideration here are fluid shock waves, so perhaps that is the source of the discrepancy. I provided only one source above, because of extant copyright restrictions imposed by the scientific journals , but I am deeply conversant with the full physics literature on the behaviour of nanobubbles related to shock waves in fluids, both with regard to their behaviour when hit by a shock waves and also with regard to the shock waves that nanobubbles generate after collapse (whether caused by an incident shock wave or by an oscillating acoustic fields above the necessary minimum pressure).
Further, there is a considerable body of knowledge related to the existence if ice phases (ice VI, ice VII etc.) which do not exist at STP but only at high pressures), and those reports related to the occurrences of these ice phases under the incidence of shock waves also universally quantify the shock waves in terms of g-forces. Reports related to the existence of these phases under static conditions refer to the pressure in their domain of existence in terms of Pascals.
So I can assure you that my question is not ill-founded and any thoughts you can provide on what I presumed would be a very simple question asked solely to verify my facts for an upcoming publication, would be greatly appreciated. I am starting to wonder whether I am overthinking this. After all, pressure is also measured in atmospheres. So, for example, the units expressed by a pressure of 10 ATM (approximately 1 MPa) is a force PER UNIT AREA, where the force is 10 g. So would it not be the case that the instantaneous pressure PER UNIT AREA inside a 10 g shock wave would be simply 10 ATM even though the 10 g force is being applied along the vector of the shock wave propagation rather than the earthward vector of gravity?