how much of what we believe about purity actually comes from batch threads
The title is the whole question — how much of what we believe about purity actually comes from batch threads — but here is why I am asking. The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid. Every one of those fields exists because a result missing it has been argued about here before. How…
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
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.
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
date of analysis matters as much as the number
Retitled — the original stated a discrepancy the numbers do not show.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration.
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it