This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Where I part company with post #90, and it is a narrow parting.
Splitting a vial is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
Post #90 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Reading back through the Splitting a vial threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
Combining a chromatographic result with a documentation review gives a more complete picture than two chromatographic results, because the failure modes are different.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
Following, with nothing to contribute beyond having asked the same thing elsewhere.
Post #93 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Cross-checking one lot with two services independently is the cleanest test available and is rarely done because it costs twice as much.
Where two services agree with each other and with the declared figure, that is a genuinely strong result and it applies to that lot.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Method has to travel with the number. A verification record without the method is not a record; it is a figure.
I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.
The arithmetic in post #97 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
My experience of Splitting a vial contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.
How to submit a sample: contact the service directly. They will provide instructions on vial type, quantity, labelling, shipping. Following their instructions exactly ensures results are interpretable.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
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.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Picking up post #101: that is the part I would want checked first.
A record with four results over sixteen months is a thin record rather than a bad one, and the honest description says which.
Blind sampling: submitting without the laboratory or seller knowing the source removes the two easiest ways for a result to be shaped: selective submission and selective reporting. The extra effort is worth it.
I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
Cross-checking one lot with two services independently is the cleanest test available and is rarely done because it costs twice as much.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.
Where I part company with post #105, and it is a narrow parting.
Combining a chromatographic result with a documentation review gives a more complete picture than two chromatographic results, because the failure modes are different.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Two sentences on Splitting a vial and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
Answering the question post #105 raises rather than the one it answers.
Nothing in a verification record is a guarantee about the vial in your hand. That check is yours and nobody can do it for you.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
What I would tell a new member reading about Splitting a vial for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Where I part company with post #110, and it is a narrow parting.
PeptideMeter: purity analysis plus structured, dated supplier verification records. Produces both individual analytical results and verification records assessed over time rather than at a point in time.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
Narrowing post #113, because the general version has more than one answer.
Verification records are dated because they expire in usefulness. A result from two years ago describes a lot from two years ago.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats
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 |
|
What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset
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 | |
|
Submitting a sample: the process end to end
On the subject in the title: Submitting a sample: the process end to end Working notes rather than a conclusion. Submitting a sample keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is…
|
+99 | 114 | 29k | 21h |
|
Interpreting a result that disagrees with the supplier's certificate
Interpreting a result that disagrees with the supplier's certificate 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…
|
+129 | 153 | 7.3k | 5mo |
|
Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study
On the subject in the title: Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study Working notes rather than a conclusion. Publishing an inconvenient result, and specifically the version of it that the…
|
+59 | 70 | 992 | 11mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Choosing which test to pay for, given a fixed budget
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 |
|
Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy
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 |
|
Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats
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 |
|
Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly
Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A question about how a record should be read rather than about…
|
+94 | 102 | 20k | 3mo |
|
What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine
What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Something about consumer-accessible tests does not reconcile…
|
2 | 17k | 1h |