Patterns that reliably precede a problem, documented

Patterns that reliably precede a problem, documented — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Patterns, from the point of view of someone who has read the documentation and is still stuck.

Saying which parts I have understood so that nobody wastes time re-explaining them, and where exactly the understanding stops.

Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.

The opening post and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

The most useful reply I ever got about patterns was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.

Claims of pharmaceutical-grade status for research-use-only material are a labelling problem and are common enough to be worth expecting rather than reacting to.

I read the earlier replies on patterns 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.

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.

Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.

Building on post #6 rather than restating it.

Reporting rather than recommending, on patterns. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.