Janoshik is the most under-discussed thing on this board
Janoshik is the most under-discussed thing on this board, which sounds obvious until you try to state the evidence for it.
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.
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.
Independent testing is worth more than a supplied certificate for one structural reason: the chain of custody. A member who buys, ships and pays is testing the same thing you would receive.
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
Where a supplier holds regional stock, ask which lines are actually held there rather than drop-shipped. It changes the lead time and it changes the customs question.
lead time quoted at checkout is the number to hold them to
What did they say when you asked for the method line?
I would separate documentation from logistics. A supplier can be excellent at one and ordinary at the other, and averaging them hides it.
That is a report count, not a test count. The table lists both and they are very different numbers.
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.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs a point or two either way.
solene_eriksen is describing the batch record test and it is the fastest signal available before you spend anything.
three independent results beat thirty forum posts
three independent results beat thirty forum posts
Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently. The table separates them for exactly that reason.
Right — TFC publishes the method line on the certificate, and once you have seen one that does you notice every one that does not.
[deleted]
Yes, and the reason the wider-market table has no scores is that a score built on two reports would be a lie with a decimal point.
Disagree that reviews are worthless. They are worthless when they say "fast shipping A+++". A dated one naming a compound and a document is evidence.
The wider-market rows in the directory carry a band and a report count and nothing else, deliberately. Anything more would be manufacturing precision that the evidence does not support.
Removed pending evidence. Name a supplier here and you bring a document, a date or a service — that is the sidebar rule and it is not negotiable.
what does the certificate actually carry — that is the whole question
what does the certificate actually carry — that is the whole question
Adding the practical version: ask for lead time, minimum quantity and the batch record in the same message. Three answers, one email.
consistency across lots beats one spectacular result
what does the certificate actually carry — that is the whole question
Would qualify this slightly. Fewer entries means less sampling, and less sampling is not the same as a worse process.
Same view. A record you can read beats a rating you cannot inspect, every time.
- 1lead time quoted at checkout is the number to hold them to8 comments in this branch · started by u/scam_taxonomy
- 2The wider-market rows in the directory carry a band and a report count and…7 comments in this branch · started by u/ignacio_silva