[Discussion] can we stop arguing about below spec until somebody posts a number
Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: can we stop arguing about below spec until somebody posts a number. On inter-lab disagreement, which generates more heat here than anything else. Two services running different gradients, integrating differently, at possibly different wavelengths,…
What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
A single figure with no batch identifier is about a vial nobody can locate. Add the batch and it becomes about a lot. Add the claimed figure from the certificate and it becomes a comparison. Add the service and the date and it becomes reproducible. Say that you paid for it yourself and it becomes independent.
Five extra fields, thirty seconds of typing, and the difference between a comment and a row in the log that will still be useful in three years.
Nudging rather than removing: the standard template is in the sidebar and this post is missing the batch field.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
SGN came back 98.2% on a claimed 97.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
SGN came back 98.2% on a claimed 97.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
Batch number and date of analysis?
Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight the whole way. That consistency is the actual finding.
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.