Claims of pharmaceutical-grade status for research-use-only material are a labelling problem and are common enough to be worth expecting rather than reacting to.
That holds under the stated conditions and I have stated them.
32 likes 14mo
Sourcing · Red flags · continued
A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims posts 91–119
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Reading back through the supplier threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
Everything in post #91 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Supplier is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
3 likes 14mo
h.brandt, post #68: What I would want before treating supplier as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing. Go to post
Narrowing post #91, because the general version has more than one answer.
An unexplained discrepancy that the supplier declined to address is a legitimate thing to record, stated as exactly that and nothing more.
Taking post #95 at face value and following it one step further.
Answering the supplier question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
11 likes 13mo
v.malinowski, post #81: That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around. Go to post
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
I had written a reply contradicting post #95 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on supplier, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
0 likes 13mo
Practical answer on supplier, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
31 likes 13mo
r.chukwu, post #57: The documentation on supplier is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread. Go to post
Post #99 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Nothing here should be read as an accusation against a named company, and the guidelines exist so that reports remain reports.
I would be cautious about generalising from the supplier example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
7 likes 13mo
vial_slope, post #48: Unresponsiveness: a supplier that does not reply to reasonable requests for documentation or clarification is showing you something about how they operate. That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with. Go to post
The guidelines draw that line for a practical reason as much as a fair one: reports accumulate into something useful and allegations do not.
VPoulsen, post #25: Unresponsiveness: a supplier that does not reply to reasonable requests for documentation or clarification is showing you something about how they operate. Go to post
Two sentences on supplier and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
Being wrong in public about a supplier is costly to that supplier and to the person who was wrong. That is why the evidence standard is what it is.
Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
24 likes 13mo
Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.
11 likes 13mo
h.karlsen, post #60: That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to. Go to post
This follows post #107 rather than contradicting it.
What I would check first on supplier is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
Rodrigues, post #102: Unresponsiveness: a supplier that does not reply to reasonable requests for documentation or clarification is showing you something about how they operate. Go to post
Post #109 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
A stock listing that never changes and a lead time that never varies are both worth noticing. Real operations have variation in them.
Safety documentation absent: a supplier that cannot provide information about sterility testing, endotoxin testing, or safety documentation when asked is raising flags.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
13 likes 13mo
l.vermeulen, post #3: Adding the measurement that post #2 says would settle it. Evasion when asked: if a supplier does not clarify when asked specifically for method details, counter-ion form, or batch origin, that itself is a red flag worth documenting. Go to post
Anonymity: a supplier that will not disclose legal name, address, or responsible person is not operating in a way that allows accountability.
Narrowing post #114, because the general version has more than one answer.
The strongest single signal available cheaply is what happens when you ask a technical question. A quantitative answer inside a working day is difficult to fake at scale.
0 likes 13mo
Everything in post #116 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
I think the supplier question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
5 likes 12mo
r.chukwu, post #57: The documentation on supplier is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread. Go to post
Picking up post #118: that is the part I would want checked first.
Having read the whole supplier thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
This topic was referenced in
- About the Red flags categorySourcing › Red flags · 4 replies
- When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retractionSourcing › Red flags · 38 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Pricing far outside the range, in either direction
Pricing far outside the range, in either direction Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Pricing far outside the range — I have the observation and I do not trust…
|
+22 | 26 | 325 | 2y |
|
A certificate whose chromatogram axes do not match its stated method — one year on
A certificate whose chromatogram axes do not match its stated method — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on certificate…
|
+103 | 111 | 8.1k | 2mo |
|
Follow-up: Patterns that reliably precede a problem, documented
On the subject in the title: Patterns that reliably precede a problem, documented Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about Patterns that I did not know to ask the first time. The…
|
2 | 70 | 1d | |
|
Follow-up: A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims
A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about supplier that I did not know to ask the first…
|
+74 | 82 | 2.8k | 6mo |
|
Documentation that appears only after payment
Documentation that appears only after payment Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Proposing that documentation deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring…
|
+113 | 124 | 13k | 7mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags documentation quality, disputed, moderation
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading a home test result without over-claiming — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Reading a home test result without over-claiming — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Reading a home test result is…
|
2 | 12k | 6mo | |
|
Coming back to: Pricing far outside the range, in either direction
Pricing far outside the range, in either direction Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Pricing far outside the range — I have the observation and I do not trust…
|
+22 | 26 | 325 | 2y |
|
Follow-up: Reconciling a label claim with a content assay
Reconciling a label claim with a content assay Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about Reconciling a label claim that I did not know to…
|
+26 | 30 | 6.5k | 14d |
|
Reused chromatograms across lots: how to spot it — what changed since
Reused chromatograms across lots: how to spot it — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of Reused chromatograms across…
|
+34 | 39 | 20k | 2mo |
|
Revisiting: Mobile reading experience on long topics
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Mobile reading experience on long topics Everything below is what sits behind that. Bringing the figures rather than the impression, since a process…
|
+10 | 15 | 34k | 10h |