[Below Spec] 61.2% on a vial that shipped with a 99% COA
Filing this under things worth writing down: 61.2% on a vial that shipped with a 99% COA.
Figures up front so nobody has to dig: 61.2% and 99%.
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A two-year-old result is evidence about two years ago and should be read that way.
Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied certificate: the vial tested is the vial that arrived at a member’s door.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity and relative quantity are separate claims and the log tracks both.
Did the vial lot match the paperwork lot?
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
This.
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
Split one vial between Medutest and PeptideMeter. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.