Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly posts 91–103
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.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
What "verified" means on our pages: specific lots were independently measured on stated dates by named services and results were consistent with the supplier's documentation. It is not a recommendation and does not extend to untested lots.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Adding the measurement that post #92 says would settle it.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
Selective submission and selective reporting are the two easiest ways for a result to be shaped, and blinding addresses the first while a commitment to post addresses the second.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
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.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.
Adding the measurement that post #102 says would settle it.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: Filing a first vendor report: a worked example
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Filing a first vendor report: a worked example Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about Filing a first vendor that I think has a definite answer,…
|
2 | 60k | 11mo | |
|
Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there Everything below is what sits behind that. Structured report rather than an…
|
+100 | 108 | 57k | 1d |
|
[2026 update] Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated
On the subject in the title: Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated Working notes rather than a conclusion. Structured question about turnaround and what it signals. I have started…
|
3 | 18k | 11mo | |
|
Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy
On the subject in the title: Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about how a record should be read rather than about a supplier. We have…
|
+44 | 49 | 589 | 8h |
|
Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy — does this still hold?
Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Structured question about turnaround and…
|
+47 | 52 | 58k | 16mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags Janoshik Analytical, documentation quality, third-party testing
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there Everything below is what sits behind that. Structured report rather than an…
|
+100 | 108 | 57k | 1d |
|
Follow-up: Reporting a discrepancy without making an allegation
Reporting a discrepancy without making an allegation Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about Reporting a discrepancy that I did not know…
|
2 | 24k | 19mo | |
|
About the Home & field testing category
What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot tell you. Mostly a subcategory about limitations. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…
|
4 | 51k | 11mo | |
|
When a tidy document is a signal and when it is decoration
When a tidy document is a signal and when it is decoration I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. What changes if the standard account of tidy document is…
|
+6 | 10 | 20k | 10mo |
|
What a certificate commits its issuer to — one year on
What a certificate commits its issuer to — one year on — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a…
|
+107 | 117 | 6.5k | 1d |