Flow field-based methods are becoming increasingly popular for the analysis of interfacial shear rheology data. Such methods take properly into account the subphase drag by solving the Navier–Stokes equations for the bulk phase flows, together with the Boussinesq–Scriven boundary condition at the fluid–fluid interface and the probe equation of motion. Such methods have been successfully implemented on the double wall-ring (DWR), the magnetic rod (MR), and the bicone interfacial shear rheometers. However, a study of the errors introduced directly by the numerical processing is still lacking. Here, we report on a study of the errors introduced exclusively by the numerical procedure corresponding to the bicone geometry at an air–water interface. In our study, we set an input value of the complex interfacial viscosity, and we numerically obtained the corresponding flow field and the complex amplitude ratio for the probe motion. Then, we used the standard iterative procedure to obtain the calculated complex viscosity value. A detailed comparison of the set and calculated complex viscosity values was made in wide ranges of the three parameters herein used, namely the real and imaginary parts of the complex interfacial viscosity and the frequency. The observed discrepancies yield a detailed landscape of the numerically-introduced errors.