Everything in post #12 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
31 likes 15mo
Topic summary
A report I filed that turned out to be wrong, and the correction
This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 133, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
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.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
31 likes 15mo
Where I part company with post #78, and it is a narrow parting.
Comparing your result to somebody else's on a different lot is not a comparison of suppliers. Lot is the unit and it should be in every report.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
27 likes 14mo
Building on post #83 rather than restating it.
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.
30 likes 14mo
j.dahlberg, post #108: Coming back to post #107, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Report the certificate figure alongside the independent one. The comparison is the point and it is the part most often omitted. Go to post
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
slow_titrator, post #116: Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere. Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right. Go to post
A difference inside method repeatability is not a disagreement. Saying so in your own report prevents somebody else reading it as one.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
desiccant_notes, post #80: Where I part company with post #78, and it is a narrow parting. Comparing your result to somebody else's on a different lot is not a comparison of suppliers. Lot is the unit and it should be in every report. I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be. Go to post
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.
Read the full topic (133 posts)
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there
On the subject in the title: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there Working notes rather than a conclusion. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
4 | 6.3k | 1d | |
|
Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there Everything below is what sits behind that. Structured report rather than an…
|
+100 | 108 | 57k | 1d |
|
Follow-up: Reporting a discrepancy without making an allegation
Reporting a discrepancy without making an allegation Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about Reporting a discrepancy that I did not know…
|
2 | 24k | 19mo | |
|
Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated
Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin comparing documentation quality…
|
+7 | 11 | 29k | 19h |
|
Reconciling a supplier certificate with an independent result
Reconciling a supplier certificate with an independent result — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reconciling a supplier certificate: setting out the arithmetic in full,…
|
+18 | 24 | 347 | 9mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags certificate of analysis, disputed, third-party testing
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine
What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Something about consumer-accessible tests does not reconcile…
|
2 | 17k | 1h | |
|
What a simple presence test is genuinely useful for — does this still hold?
What a simple presence test is genuinely useful for — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Trying to work out what would count as…
|
2 | 22k | 16mo | |
|
Coming back to: Purity assay versus content assay: two different numbers
Purity assay versus content assay: two different numbers — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking about Purity assay versus content assay directly, because I have read four…
|
+71 | 77 | 31k | 23mo |
|
Reflectance and photometric devices: precision in practice
On the subject in the title: Reflectance and photometric devices: precision in practice Working notes rather than a conclusion. I was wrong about reflectance and photometric devices in a thread last spring…
|
2 | 2.2k | 10mo | |
|
Coming back to: What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine Something about consumer-accessible tests does not reconcile and I would like a second pair…
|
+4 | 8 | 25k | 22mo |