Documentation that appears only after payment posts 61–90

Safety documentation absent: a supplier that cannot provide information about sterility testing, endotoxin testing, or safety documentation when asked is raising flags.

Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.

Where somebody posts a concern, ask what would resolve it before arguing about it. Half of these threads end with a document nobody had asked for.

Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.

This follows post #61 rather than contradicting it.

Where I have landed on documentation, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.

I keep a log for documentation specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.

The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a resolved case written up with the resolution, because the unresolved ones are all anyone remembers.

It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.

Post #65 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Before the thread moves on from documentation — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.

Taking post #65 at face value and following it one step further.

Two things can be true about documentation at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.

Where somebody posts a concern, ask what would resolve it before arguing about it. Half of these threads end with a document nobody had asked for.

Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.

The arithmetic in post #69 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

What I would want before treating documentation as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.

Unresponsiveness: a supplier that does not reply to reasonable requests for documentation or clarification is showing you something about how they operate.

I had written a reply contradicting post #70 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Checked the documentation claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.

Picking up post #72: that is the part I would want checked first.

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

Nothing here should be read as an accusation against a named company, and the guidelines exist so that reports remain reports.

I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.