Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
Post #32 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The maintainers will ask for missing fields rather than rejecting a report. Filling them in afterwards is normal and nobody minds.
I read post #36 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
Post #36 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Building on post #39 rather than restating it.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Narrowing post #40, because the general version has more than one answer.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
Structured report format: compound, lot, independent testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and it becomes a disputed record when asked and not explained.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
Narrowing post #44, because the general version has more than one answer.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Post #46 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Where you have no independent result, a documentation report is still worth filing: what the certificate contained, what it omitted, and how fast a request was answered.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
The arithmetic in post #49 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
Date the report: when the analysis was done matters. Material can degrade in storage. A report from two years ago is still useful but is not evidence about the current state of the same supplier's stock.
Everything in post #53 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
The format we ask for is compound, lot, testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. A report missing any of those goes to the discussion rather than the record.
Building on post #57 rather than restating it.
Report the certificate figure alongside the independent one. The comparison is the point and it is the part most often omitted.
That holds under the stated conditions and I have stated them.
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.