why does nobody talk about related substances
Right, the certificate of analysis question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 9 data points over 14 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 49, not week 3. 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
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
What is the method line say? Not the technique, the actual method.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
[deleted]
Slight fix: the number was 96.2, not 96.8. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Yeah, 96.8% area is not the problem, the missing impurity breakdown is the problem.
Disagree on that part. 93.7% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.
Metadata check caught a COA that was created in a browser four months after the analysis date. Not evidence of fraud, but worth flagging to QYB.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 88 weeks to accept.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
the related substances line is where the story is
the related substances line is where the story is
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 87 weeks to accept.
the related substances line is where the story is
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
What were the related substances listed individually?
- 1The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…9 comments in this branch · started by u/purity_pedant
- 2Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.4 comments in this branch · started by u/purity_pedant