[Discussion] we are measuring below spec at the wrong time and calling it noise
we are measuring below spec at the wrong time and calling it noise — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested. 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…
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A two-year-old result is evidence about two years ago and should be read that way.
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period.
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?
Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.
Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied certificate: the vial tested is the vial that arrived at a member’s door.
Which service, and did you pay for it yourself?
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
How many separate lots does your series cover?
[removed by moderator]
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
Area percent or net peptide content?