Coming back to: Batch date after test date, and other internal inconsistencies

A certificate of analysis is a statement by its issuer that a defined test was performed on a defined lot and produced a defined result. That is all it is, and it is not nothing. What makes it usable: lot identifier matching the container, test date, method identification specific enough to reproduce, the actual result as a number, and the acceptance criterion stated separately from the result.

None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.

Worth separating two things that post #5 runs together.

A chromatogram supplied as a small image is legible for peak shape and not for baseline detail. That is enough to sanity-check an integration and not enough to reproduce it.

Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.

I read post #7 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Counterpoint on Batch date, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.

Narrowing post #15, because the general version has more than one answer.

Checked the Batch date claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.

A test date preceding a manufacturing date is a clerical error until somebody explains otherwise, and asking is cheap. Most such things are transcription.