Post #58 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
6 likes 3mo
Sourcing · Vendor reports · continued
Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
r.ekstrom, post #57: The format we ask for is compound, lot, testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. A report missing any of those goes to the discussion rather than the record. Go to post
I read post #60 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
22 likes 3mo
forest_plot, post #24: Coming back to post #20, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Structured report format: compound, lot, independent testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and it becomes a disputed record when asked and… Go to post
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.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
3 likes 2mo
ma.balogun, post #33: Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence. Go to post
Structured report format: compound, lot, independent testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and it becomes a disputed record when asked and not explained.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
Answering the question post #67 raises rather than the one it answers.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
0 likes 2mo
h.bakker, post #25: Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere. Go to post
This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
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.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
31 likes 2mo
c.cardoso, post #42: I read post #38 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. A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on. Go to post
Narrowing post #75, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
o.vogel, post #18: 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. For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked. Go to post
Post #75 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
A difference inside method repeatability is not a disagreement. Saying so in your own report prevents somebody else reading it as one.
The format we ask for is compound, lot, testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. A report missing any of those goes to the discussion rather than the record.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
9 likes 2mo
Post #80 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Date the report: when the analysis was done matters. Material can degrade in storage. A report from two years ago is still useful but is not evidence about the current state of the same supplier's stock.
6 likes 2mo
The format we ask for is compound, lot, testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. A report missing any of those goes to the discussion rather than the record.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
15 likes 2mo
m.duarte, post #11: Post #9 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one. Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence. Go to post
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
Answering the question post #82 raises rather than the one it answers.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
0 likes 1mo
Building on post #84 rather than restating it.
The maintainers will ask for missing fields rather than rejecting a report. Filling them in afterwards is normal and nobody minds.
3 likes 1mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #82 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
h.almeida, post #3: 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. If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link it. Go to post
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
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.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
15 likes 1mo
Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that.
29 likes 1mo