A note on how Documentation gets discussed rather than on Documentation itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
3 likes 15mo
Sourcing · Red flags · continued
Follow-up: Documentation that appears only after payment posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
KAndersson, post #18: Patterns that reliably precede a problem: underdosing (less active material than stated, documented by independent testing), mislabelling (wrong compound, wrong strength, or wrong batch on the label), and failure to provide documentation when asked. I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one. Go to post
That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.
Answering the question post #31 raises rather than the one it answers.
I read the earlier replies on Documentation twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.
22 likes 15mo
l.pires, post #24: Everything in post #20 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. A stock listing that never changes and a lead time that never varies are both worth noticing. Real operations have variation in them. Go to post
Checked the Documentation claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
e.ferreira, post #17: What I would check first on Documentation is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph. Go to post
Reporting rather than recommending, on Documentation. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Safety documentation absent: a supplier that cannot provide information about sterility testing, endotoxin testing, or safety documentation when asked is raising flags.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
16 likes 15mo
t.ndiaye, post #1: Posting this under the heading it deserves: Documentation that appears only after payment Everything below is what sits behind that. Proposing that Documentation deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring topic, and drafting the skeleton here so that the argument about scope happens before the writing rather than after. What I… Go to post
Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that.
ai.vukovic, post #8: An update on my earlier Documentation post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain. Go to post
Confirming post #40 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Where somebody posts a concern, ask what would resolve it before arguing about it. Half of these threads end with a document nobody had asked for.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the Documentation data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
16 likes 15mo
tracked_parcel, post #37: Safety documentation absent: a supplier that cannot provide information about sterility testing, endotoxin testing, or safety documentation when asked is raising flags. That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more. Go to post
Post #43 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
Post #44 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a resolved case written up with the resolution, because the unresolved ones are all anyone remembers.
0 likes 15mo
n.rowntree, post #14: This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching. Go to post
Where I part company with post #43, and it is a narrow parting.
Careful with the language on Documentation. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
A certificate that reports a specification in the result column is a documentation defect, and it is a defect people should be able to recognise without it being called anything worse.
23 likes 15mo
I read post #46 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Nothing here should be read as an accusation against a named company, and the guidelines exist so that reports remain reports.
15 likes 15mo
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
9 likes 15mo
r.vukovic, post #32: That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now. Go to post
Source for the Documentation figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
Patterns that reliably precede a problem: underdosing (less active material than stated, documented by independent testing), mislabelling (wrong compound, wrong strength, or wrong batch on the label), and failure to provide documentation when asked.
0 likes 15mo
Practical note on Documentation: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
14 likes 15mo
I disagree with the framing of Documentation above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
5 likes 15mo
r.laurent, post #28: I read post #24 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. A certificate that reports a specification in the result column is a documentation defect, and it is a defect people should be able to recognise without it being called anything worse. I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do. Go to post
Post #53 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
The guidelines draw that line for a practical reason as much as a fair one: reports accumulate into something useful and allegations do not.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
titrate_trace, post #16: Post #13 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. Practical experience of Documentation, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable. Go to post
Documentation is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
I had written a reply contradicting post #57 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Where the same certificate image appears with different lot numbers, that is a documentation finding worth reporting with the images attached.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
0 likes 15mo
Documentation came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.
19 likes 15mo