[PSA] below spec is not what most of this community thinks it is
Short public-service post: below spec is not what most of this community thinks it is.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
Tested three lots over a year rather than three vials from one lot. Cost the same and told me something completely different.
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
A single figure with no batch identifier is about a vial nobody can locate. Add the batch and it becomes about a lot. Add the claimed figure from the certificate and it becomes a comparison. Add the service and the date and it becomes reproducible. Say that you paid for it yourself and it becomes independent.
Five extra fields, thirty seconds of typing, and the difference between a comment and a row in the log that will still be useful in three years.
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
Did the vial lot match the paperwork lot?
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
- 1Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot…8 comments in this branch · started by u/tuva_kirchner