What a documentation review can and cannot tell you

It does not extend to lots nobody has seen, it is not a recommendation, and it says nothing about anything other than what was measured.

I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.

The reason documentation review is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.

Repeat determination on the same product line months apart is the measurement that speaks to consistency, and consistency is what most buyers actually want.

That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.

The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.

I read post #42 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Verified here means specific lots were independently measured on stated dates by named services and the results were consistent with the documentation. It is narrower than people assume and deliberately so.

The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.

I disagree with the framing of documentation review above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.

The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.

A record with four results over sixteen months is a thin record rather than a bad one, and the honest description says which.

Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.

On documentation review, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.

If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.