Topic summary

Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study

Sourcing › Independent verification Medutest VendorInvestigate third-party testing Janoshik Analytical Wiki

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 71, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

WendelboeTL2Member8 Apr 2025#6

Everything in post #4 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

The most useful reply I ever got about publishing an inconvenient result was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.

27 likes 16mo

citation_peakTL3Regular15 May 2025#20

Publishing an inconvenient result is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.

33 likes 14mo

r.mcalisterTL3Regular22 May 2025#23

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

31 likes 14mo

j.asanteTL26 Jun 2025#30

Where I part company with post #26, and it is a narrow parting.

The honest answer on publishing an inconvenient result is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.

Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.

30 likes 14mo

i.balogunTL212 Jun 2025#33

unit_conversion, post #4: Verification records are dated because they expire in usefulness. A result from two years ago describes a lot from two years ago. I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order. Go to post

Verification records are dated because they expire in usefulness. A result from two years ago describes a lot from two years ago.

The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.

30 likes in reply to #4 14mo

a.krastevTL210 Jul 2025#47

two_year_line, post #34: This follows post #33 rather than contradicting it. I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of publishing an inconvenient result and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops. Go to post

Building on post #46 rather than restating it.

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.

28 likes in reply to #34 13mo

appeals_deskTL3Regular16 Jul 2025#50

dexa_twice_yearly, post #25: Post #24 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Repeat determination on the same product line months apart is the measurement that speaks to consistency, and consistency is what most buyers actually want. Go to post

Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.

27 likes in reply to #25 12mo

l.cabreraTL229 Jul 2025#57

r.szabo, post #7: Combining a chromatographic result with a documentation review gives a more complete picture than two chromatographic results, because the failure modes are different. The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests. Go to post

Verification records are dated because they expire in usefulness. A result from two years ago describes a lot from two years ago.

I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.

27 likes in reply to #7 12mo

s.okonkwoTL218 Aug 2025#68

Repeat testing: if you want to verify the same lot a second time, testing with a different service strengthens the conclusion. Testing with the same service verifies reproducibility but uses the same method.

30 likes 11mo

Read the full topic (71 posts)

This topic was referenced in

Submitting a sample: the process end to endSourcing › Independent verification · 114 replies

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset Sourcing › Independent verification Janoshik Analytical VendorInvestigate blind sampling third-party testing The question in the title: What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Posting a small dataset on documentation…		4	170	4mo
Choosing which test to pay for, given a fixed budget Sourcing › Independent verification third-party testing VendorInvestigate Medutest Janoshik Analytical On the subject in the title: Choosing which test to pay for, given a fixed budget Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about how a record should be read rather than about a supplier. We have…	+60	70	49k	3mo
Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats Sourcing › Independent verification Medutest blind sampling PeptideMeter Under review On the subject in the title: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin aggregate verification data down and…	+64	74	4.6k	14h
How Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate differ — a second dataset Sourcing › Independent verification Janoshik Analytical blind sampling PeptideMeter VendorInvestigate Solved How Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate differ — a second dataset I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Posting a small dataset on…	+42	46	46k	2mo
[2026 update] What a purity-only report leaves out Sourcing › Independent verification PeptideMeter third-party testing Janoshik Analytical The question in the title: What a purity-only report leaves out I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…	+97	103	5.2k	3mo

Related topics — sharing the tags Medutest, VendorInvestigate, third-party testing

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
What a purity-only report leaves out Sourcing › Independent verification Medutest VendorInvestigate third-party testing PeptideMeter Solved What a purity-only report leaves out — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Purity-only: setting out the arithmetic in full, because I have had to do it twice…	+92	105	4k	8mo
Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy Sourcing › Vendor reports third-party testing documentation quality batch & lot numbers Solved 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
Coming back to: What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine Analytics › Home & field testing third-party testing documentation quality LOD & LOQ ELISA Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine Something about consumer-accessible tests does not reconcile and I would like a second pair…	+4	8	25k	22mo
A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial Analytics › Home & field testing documentation quality ELISA third-party testing Posting this under the heading it deserves: A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparison of home results against: setting out…	+61	65	35k	8mo
A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial — does this still hold? Analytics › Home & field testing ELISA third-party testing LOD & LOQ documentation quality Solved A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Comparison of home…	+2	6	15k	11h