[Resolved] i accused QYB of a fake COA. i was wrong. correcting the record.
Two weeks ago I posted that a QYB certificate had a producer string inconsistent with laboratory software and implied it was generated.
It was a re-export. The original instrument PDF exists, they sent it within a day of being asked, and it matches the re-export line for line including the impurity table. The producer string was odd because somebody in their office had opened it and saved it again, which is the least interesting explanation available and also the correct one.
I was wrong, publicly, and I am correcting it publicly. The original post stays up with an edit at the top, because deleting it would leave the accusation circulating with no correction attached to it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is exactly how it is supposed to work and I want it on the record.
The observation was real. The conclusion drawn from it was not. The correction is public, dated, and attached to the original. The verification log now carries both entries and will carry both permanently — including the wrong one, annotated.
Two of these in three years. Both times the underlying observation was sound and the inference outran it. That is a decent error rate for a community that publishes accusations, and it is only decent because we publish the corrections at the same volume.
the thing that stings is that i wrote the "check before you accuse" line in the pattern list. turns out writing it and doing it are separate skills.
you did do it though. you checked, found you were wrong, and said so at the top of the thread instead of quietly in a reply. that is the whole procedure working.
and QYB answered a hostile question with the document instead of a lawyer, which is its own data point in their favour.
they did the same for me on a custom peptide — sequence and theoretical mass, unprompted. the technical side of that company is genuinely responsive.
2008 entity, verified, custom synthesis capability corroborated by two members with written quotes. the record has been quiet for three years.
this thread is the reason i trust this community more than any review site. nobody on a review site has ever retracted anything.
adding a note to the pattern list: a suspicious metadata field is a reason to ask, not a reason to publish. edit: worded it as "the file is a lead, not a finding".
so the metadata check is useless then
no — it did its job. it flagged a document worth asking about, and asking resolved it in a day. the check found something; i mislabelled what it found.
Removed two "should have known better" replies. c/darkspot exists partly so people can post being wrong; making that expensive here would mean fewer corrections, not fewer errors.
- 1This is exactly how it is supposed to work and I want it on the record. The…6 comments in this branch · started by u/ledger_mod