[Discussion] PeptideMeter is doing more work than we give it credit for
PeptideMeter is doing more work than we give it credit for. I have gone back and forth on this for months.
Lead time and minimum quantity are the two facts people forget to ask for and then argue about later. Both are answerable in one email before you commit.
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.
A certificate with a purity figure and no method line is not falsifiable. You cannot reproduce it, you cannot check it, and it tells you nothing about how the number was produced.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Flair set to Vendor. Also a reminder that we take no money from any supplier in the directory.
Flair set to Vendor.
Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently. The table separates them for exactly that reason.
The order I actually check things in, for anyone building a process rather than asking about one supplier.
First, the record: source page, verification log, and how many separate lots have been tested rather than how many tests exist. Second, the paperwork: ask for a batch-specific certificate and see what comes back and how fast. Third, the logistics: quoted lead time, minimum quantity, which lines are held in regional stock. Fourth, buy small and test it yourself.
Nothing in that list is exotic and all of it is answerable before you spend real money. Most of the disappointment posts on this board skipped step two.
The thing that decided it for me was that MKM answered a column-and-gradient question in writing without asking why I wanted to know.