Assessing a warm arrival: the decision process — one year on

Assessing a warm arrival: the decision process — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

An honest uncertainty about Assessing a warm arrival rather than a disguised assertion.

I do not know the answer and I have not been able to find one. What I have is the shape of the question, which may be worth more than my guess at the answer.

Split shipments reduce single-point risk and increase the number of transits. Which trade is right depends on what you are protecting against.

Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.

On Assessing a warm arrival the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.

Where the Assessing a warm arrival reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.

Adding the measurement that post #76 says would settle it.

Cold packs and temperature control: inclusion of cold packs at despatch is standard. Whether they maintain temperature through transit depends on journey duration and ambient temperature. Long journeys through warm climates put product at risk.

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

Post #92 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

I would be cautious about generalising from the Assessing a warm arrival example above. It is a good example. It is one example.

Confirming post #99 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Answering the Assessing a warm arrival question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.

Assessing a warm arrival is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.