Where you submitted more than one vial from a consignment, say so. Intra-consignment comparison is one of the more useful things an individual can contribute.
7 likes 16mo
Sourcing · Vendor reports · continued
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern — the long version posts 91–120
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
n.rahimi, post #49: The maintainers will ask for missing fields rather than rejecting a report. Filling them in afterwards is normal and nobody minds. Go to post
Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register.
Where I part company with post #90, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
0 likes 16mo
Narrowing post #92, because the general version has more than one answer.
Comparing your result to somebody else's on a different lot is not a comparison of suppliers. Lot is the unit and it should be in every report.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
12 likes 16mo
baseline_drift, post #41: Where I part company with post #37, and it is a narrow parting. 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. I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason. Go to post
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.
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.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
2 likes 16mo
baseline_drift, post #41: Where I part company with post #37, and it is a narrow parting. 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. I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason. Go to post
Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.
Everything in post #101 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Report the certificate figure alongside the independent one. The comparison is the point and it is the part most often omitted.
8 likes 16mo
LJankowiak, post #56: Date the submission as well as the result. Turnaround is part of what people want to know and it disappears if only one date is recorded. The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why. Go to post
One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and the record is built to show which of those you are looking at.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
I read post #104 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
12 likes 16mo
two_year_line, post #47: 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 one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one. Go to post
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.
One case, stated as one case.
i.almeida, post #71: Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere. Go to post
Lot matching: confirm the lot number on the certificate matches the lot number on the vial. A result from a different lot is not evidence about your vial.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Recording a reorder result against the original is one of the highest-value contributions here, because consistency over time is what a single result cannot show.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
0 likes 16mo
Everything in post #107 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
0 likes 16mo
Narrowing post #111, because the general version has more than one answer.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
33 likes 16mo
n.moreau, post #59: Comparing your result to somebody else's on a different lot is not a comparison of suppliers. Lot is the unit and it should be in every report. Go to post
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
j.habermann, post #34: Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere. Go to post
Where you have no independent result, a documentation report is still worth filing: what the certificate contained, what it omitted, and how fast a request was answered.
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.
0 likes 16mo
I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.
25 likes 16mo
m.restrepo, post #23: Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly. Go to post
Date the submission as well as the result. Turnaround is part of what people want to know and it disappears if only one date is recorded.
I would call that likely rather than established.
The maintainers will ask for missing fields rather than rejecting a report. Filling them in afterwards is normal and nobody minds.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
3 likes 16mo