Follow-up: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor posts 121–147

Titration planner refuses 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.

Unit-conversion tools are only as good as the assumption they make about the syringe. Ask what barrel and what graduation interval it assumed before trusting the units figure.

Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.

Narrowing post #120, because the general version has more than one answer.

A note on how titration planner refuses gets discussed rather than on titration planner refuses itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.

Everything in post #122 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

A titration planner is a scheduling aid rather than a clinical recommendation, and any tool that presents one as the other is overstepping.

A tool that refuses to give an answer when the result falls below one graduation is doing something useful. Most just print the number.

That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.

Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.

Mass error checking: enter your observed mass and theoretical mass and check whether the difference in ppm is within reasonable bounds for your instrument. Useful sanity check on LC-MS results.

If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.

Answering the question post #127 raises rather than the one it answers.

The arithmetic on titration planner refuses is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.

Confirming post #128 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Summarising the titration planner refuses thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.

Rounding behaviour is where two tools disagree. One rounding to the nearest graduation and one to two decimal places will produce different advice from identical inputs.

The version of titration planner refuses that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.

On titration planner refuses, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.

Dose equivalence calculator: compounds have different potencies. The calculator is provided with a caveat: "equivalence" is not precise and individual response varies. It is a rough starting point, not a dose prescription.

Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.

The arithmetic in post #133 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

The number people quote for titration planner refuses is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.