certificate of analysis: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
Right, the certificate of analysis question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 20 data points over 32 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 55, not week 9. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
[removed by moderator]
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
axis labels included, always
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
the batch number or it did not happen
post the whole document, not the headline number
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 49 weeks to accept.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
Water content on the document? That affects your concentration math.
Are you looking at area% or net peptide content? Different numbers.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
Slight fix: the number was 98.0, not 98.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
- 1The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…9 comments in this branch · started by u/anders_kuusela
- 2post the whole document, not the headline number5 comments in this branch · started by u/wrong_network_w