Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy — does this still hold?

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.

Pattern across lots: a single result is a data point. Three or four results from the same supplier showing a consistent pattern becomes a record worth discussing. Two results that disagree might just be measurement variation.

It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.

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.

Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.

What "verified" means on our pages: specific lots were independently measured on stated dates by named services and results were consistent with the supplier's documentation. It is not a recommendation and does not extend to untested lots.

Date the report: when the analysis was done matters. Material can degrade in storage. A report from two years ago is still useful but is not evidence about the current state of the same supplier's stock.

A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.

Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.

On post #47 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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

Picking up post #50: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.