A report I filed that turned out to be wrong, and the correction posts 121–133

The maintainers will ask for missing fields rather than rejecting a report. Filling them in afterwards is normal and nobody minds.

Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.

The format we ask for is compound, lot, testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. A report missing any of those goes to the discussion rather than the record.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

Post #122 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.

Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.

Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.

Structured report format: compound, lot, independent testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and it becomes a disputed record when asked and not explained.

The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.

Confirming post #126 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Where you have no independent result, a documentation report is still worth filing: what the certificate contained, what it omitted, and how fast a request was answered.

I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.

I had written a reply contradicting post #124 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.

The arithmetic in post #126 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.

Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.

Report the certificate figure alongside the independent one. The comparison is the point and it is the part most often omitted.

I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.

Picking up post #131: that is the part I would want checked first.

Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.

On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.

I had written a reply contradicting post #131 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.

Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.