Topic summary

Reporting a good result: why nobody bothers and why they should — one year on

Sourcing › Vendor reports batch & lot numbers certificate of analysis documentation quality disputed third-party testing Wiki

This is a generated summary. It shows the 5 most-liked posts from a topic of 28, 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.

b.jansenTL227 Oct 2024#2

The opening post put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Blind submission is worth the extra effort. Have someone else relabel the sample so neither you nor the laboratory knows the origin until the result is back.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

18 likes 21mo

d.ndiayeTL216 Nov 2024#6

b.nwosu, post #4: Comparing your result to somebody else's on a different lot is not a comparison of suppliers. Lot is the unit and it should be in every report. Go to post

Post #2 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

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.

25 likes in reply to #4 20mo

m.mwangiTL210 Dec 2024#12

Say in advance that you will post the result whatever it says. It costs nothing and it is the difference between a record and a collection of the interesting cases.

22 likes 20mo

a.jansenTL224 Dec 2024#16

The version of Reporting a good result that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.

29 likes 19mo

p.onwukaTL219 Jan 2025#24

One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and the record is built to show which of those you are looking at.

26 likes 18mo

Read the full topic (28 posts)

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated Sourcing › Vendor reports third-party testing disputed Janoshik Analytical batch & lot numbers Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin comparing documentation quality…	+7	11	29k	19h
A report I filed that turned out to be wrong, and the correction Sourcing › Vendor reports certificate of analysis disputed third-party testing A report I filed that turned out to be wrong, and the correction Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the…	+124	132	12k	13mo
Coming back to: Why our vendor pages link the storefront and mark it sponsored Sourcing › Vendor reports third-party testing batch & lot numbers certificate of analysis documentation quality Why our vendor pages link the storefront and mark it sponsored I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Reading back through what has been written here about…		2	22k	8h
What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly Sourcing › Vendor reports batch & lot numbers disputed documentation quality third-party testing What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about how a record should be read rather than…	+27	31	27k	7mo
[2026 update] Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated Sourcing › Vendor reports batch & lot numbers documentation quality disputed certificate of analysis Solved Closed 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

Related topics — sharing the tags batch & lot numbers, certificate of analysis, documentation quality

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Coming back to: A structured critique template this community uses Evidence › Study critique confounding risk of bias disputed observational data Posting this under the heading it deserves: A structured critique template this community uses Everything below is what sits behind that. Reading back through what has been written here about structured…	+63	69	17k	18h
What to keep a record of at the point of payment Sourcing › Payments documentation quality payments research use only Solved Pinned What to keep a record of at the point of payment — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A payments question, with the mechanics separated from the money. What…		2	1.8k	16mo
Follow-up: A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims Sourcing › Red flags documentation quality disputed mislabelling moderation A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about supplier that I did not know to ask the first…	+74	82	2.8k	6mo
The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there Sourcing › Vendor reports disputed documentation quality batch & lot numbers certificate of analysis Solved On the subject in the title: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there Working notes rather than a conclusion. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…		4	6.3k	1d
Distinguishing a red flag from an inconvenience — a second dataset Sourcing › Red flags moderation documentation quality disputed On the subject in the title: Distinguishing a red flag from an inconvenience — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on Distinguishing a red flag. It is mine, it is…	+8	12	9.6k	1d