[Discussion] we are measuring VendorInvestigate at the wrong time and calling it noise
we are measuring VendorInvestigate at the wrong time and calling it noise — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs a point or two either way. Two services disagreeing by that much is agreement, not a discrepancy, and treating it otherwise starts pointless arguments.
Asked BCH for the batch record on a Tuesday and had the full document, batch and method line, before the end of the day. That is the bar now.
Sent the same compound from QST and WWB to VendorInvestigate in the same month. Both came back above the claim on the certificate — mine was 98.4% on a stated 97.5%.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
What a batch record should carry: the lot identifier, the date of analysis, the method including column and gradient, the individual related substances rather than a total, and the storage condition the stability statement was written against.
Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.
What a batch record should carry: the lot identifier, the date of analysis, the method including column and gradient, the individual related substance
Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently. The table separates them for exactly that reason.
Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently.
This is the whole method in one sentence. Everything else in the thread is elaboration.
Yes. Spread across lots is the number that tells you about the process. A single high result tells you about a vial.
I would separate documentation from logistics. A supplier can be excellent at one and ordinary at the other, and averaging them hides it.
Cosigning on lot matching. It sounds trivial and it predicts almost everything else about how an operation is run.
Same view. A record you can read beats a rating you cannot inspect, every time.
lead time quoted at checkout is the number to hold them to
lead time quoted at checkout is the number to hold them to
lina_falk is describing the batch record test and it is the fastest signal available before you spend anything.
consistency across lots beats one spectacular result
consistency across lots beats one spectacular result
Would qualify this slightly. Fewer entries means less sampling, and less sampling is not the same as a worse process.
Would qualify this slightly.
Adding the practical version: ask for lead time, minimum quantity and the batch record in the same message. Three answers, one email.
That is a report count, not a test count. The table lists both and they are very different numbers.
Agreed on buying small first. The cost of a test is small next to the cost of committing to a supplier you have not checked.
Did the lot code on the vial match the paperwork?
Correction: that supplier is in the documented twenty with a source page, not in the wider-market table. Different evidence bases entirely.
- 1Cosigning on lot matching. It sounds trivial and it predicts almost…8 comments in this branch · started by u/naomi_ekstrom
- 2What a batch record should carry: the lot identifier, the date of analysis,…6 comments in this branch · started by u/greta_lokken