Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy posts 31–50

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

I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.

Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.

The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.

Post #29 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

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.

That much is documented. The rest is how I have interpreted it.

Reports naming a supplier need the evidence attached, which is a guideline rather than a formality. It is what makes the record usable and it is what keeps it fair.

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.

It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.

Answering the question post #33 raises rather than the one it answers.

Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.

Post #37 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

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

Taking post #37 at face value and following it one step further.

If the supplier was asked about a discrepancy, include what they said verbatim rather than summarised. The wording of a response is informative.

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

I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.

I had written a reply contradicting post #40 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

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.

Picking up post #42: that is the part I would want checked first.

Blind submission is worth the effort: have someone else relabel the sample so neither you nor the laboratory knows which supplier it came from until the result is back. Blind results change minds; self-selected results do not.

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.