which fields turn a COA from a specification into a result
Trying to work out what makes a document a result rather than a general statement about a product line. The one in front of me — FGP cagrilintide — has a compound name, a purity figure, a logo and a signature image, and the summary sheet I was sent does not carry the batch, the date or a method line beyond the word HPLC.
So which fields are the load-bearing ones, and is a summary sheet like this a different document to the full report rather than a worse version of it?
best — the order this archive was captured in
A summary sheet is a different document rather than a worse one, and holding that distinction is most of the answer. Plenty of good suppliers send the short version first, simply because almost nobody asks for the long one.
The four load-bearing fields are batch, date, method, and what was measured. Remove batch and the document cannot be tied to any physical material. Remove date and you cannot tell whether it predates your vial. At that point you have a statement about a compound in general, which is a specification, not a result.
Ask them for the batch-specific document. It is a completely normal request and how they answer it is informative.
the tell is "≥98%" versus "98.4%". a specification is a promise about a product line. a result is a measurement on a run. if the number has no decimal and a greater-than sign, it is the former.
mine says 98.0% with a decimal, no greater-than. so possibly a real measurement with the identifying fields stripped?
plausibly, and that is the most common case. somebody rebuilt the document for presentation and dropped the boring fields. ask for the original.
asked. edit next day: they sent the full document within about six hours, batch FGP-2606, dated, with a method line that names the column and the gradient. so: fields were stripped for presentation, original is fine.
And that is the best possible outcome of this thread. Logging it on the source page — asked for batch-specific documentation, supplied in hours.
FGP being the reason there is any independent cagri data at all buys them a bit of goodwill from me, but the goodwill is not why the document is fine — the document is fine because they sent it.
signature images are worth zero either way. i have seen the same one on three vendors.
also: this is not a dumb question and your username is doing you a disservice. this exact question is the reason c/coa exists.
the username is load-bearing, somebody has to ask them
for a less common compound like cagri i would also want identity confirmation, not just purity. UV cannot tell you it is the right molecule.
- 1the tell is "≥98%" versus "98.4%". a specification is a promise about a…6 comments in this branch · started by u/certified_reference