[Question] how do you actually verify Janoshik
Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: how do you actually verify Janoshik.
On inter-lab disagreement, which generates more heat here than anything else.
Two services running different gradients, integrating differently, at possibly different wavelengths, will not produce identical numbers on the same material. A point either way is ordinary. Half a point is close agreement.
The productive response to a gap that size is to post both results with both methods and let the log accumulate. The unproductive response is to pick the lower number, call it the truth, and open a dispute. Members have done the first for long enough now that the bands in the vendor tables are genuinely informative.
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.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
Cosigning on saying who paid.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
That service reports area percent by default.
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
Area percent or net peptide content?
Which service, and did you pay for it yourself?
area percent unless the report says otherwise
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
[deleted]
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
Disagree that this is a discrepancy. 99.1% against a claimed 99.0% is inside ordinary inter-lab variance in either direction.
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.
SWB came back 98.8% on a claimed 98.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
SWB came back 98.8% on a claimed 98.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
reship_roulette is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
- 1Area percent or net peptide content?9 comments in this branch · started by u/hedda_aguirre
- 2Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the…8 comments in this branch · started by u/meera_sandvik