This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
One caution on insurance and replacement policies: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
Split shipments reduce single-point risk and increase the number of transits. Which trade is right depends on what you are protecting against.
Taking post #92 at face value and following it one step further.
Whatever the answer on insurance and replacement policies turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. Described a research-use-only compound as approved for human use after a correction earlier in this topic (R4).
Reading this insurance and replacement policies thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
Peak periods and public holidays affect this more than any other factor and are entirely predictable in advance.
Worth separating two things that post #96 runs together.
Insurance and replacement policies was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
This follows post #96 rather than contradicting it.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on insurance and replacement policies. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Post #96 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Anyone deciding whether a delay is a problem should ask what would change if they waited another week. Usually the answer is nothing.
Everything in post #99 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Small methodological point on insurance and replacement policies: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
Where I would push back on the insurance and replacement policies consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
Document outcomes rather than forecasting them. A forecast in this category reads as reassurance and is not one.
I read post #103 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Having read the whole insurance and replacement policies thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
An update on my earlier insurance and replacement policies post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
Distinguishing three things in the insurance and replacement policies discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
Insurance and carrier liability: most parcel carriers limit liability. Understanding the limits before choosing a carrier matters if you are shipping expensive material.
Narrowing post #110, because the general version has more than one answer.
Adding the boring version of insurance and replacement policies, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
Everything in post #108 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The confident answers on insurance and replacement policies and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
Import restrictions by jurisdiction: what is legal to import for personal use varies enormously by country. Some jurisdictions are quite permissive; others are not. Checking your own country's rules before ordering is prudent.
Building on post #114 rather than restating it.
Worth separating insurance and replacement policies as a question about the compound from insurance and replacement policies as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Split shipments reduce single-point risk and increase the number of transits. Which trade is right depends on what you are protecting against.
Peak periods and public holidays affect this more than any other factor and are entirely predictable in advance.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of insurance and replacement policies and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.