On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. What I want from this blind submission thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Blind submission and why it changes minds — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
What changes if the standard account of blind submission is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
What I want from this blind submission thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Medutest: combined purity and identity reporting. Appears throughout vendor documentation. Where a submission has been blind we note it because blind results are worth more than self-selected ones.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on blind submission, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
Post #7 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The version of blind submission that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
Picking up post #8: that is the part I would want checked first.
What I would want before treating blind submission as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
Coming back to post #10, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Reading back through the blind submission threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
Repeat testing: if you want to verify the same lot a second time, testing with a different service strengthens the conclusion. Testing with the same service verifies reproducibility but uses the same method.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
This follows post #12 rather than contradicting it.
On blind submission: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.
Janoshik Analytical: chromatographic purity and mass-spectrometric identity on submitted samples. Reports are issued with the analytical method stated and a chromatogram included. Submission is by mail.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
The question underneath blind submission is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Blind sampling: submitting without the laboratory or seller knowing the source removes the two easiest ways for a result to be shaped: selective submission and selective reporting. The extra effort is worth it.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
Small correction to my own earlier position on blind submission. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
Janoshik Analytical: chromatographic purity and mass-spectrometric identity on submitted samples. Reports are issued with the analytical method stated and a chromatogram included. Submission is by mail.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
What I would tell a new member reading about blind submission for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
Post #22 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Distinguishing three things in the blind submission discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Where the blind submission reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
Worth separating two things that post #24 runs together.
I think the blind submission question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
Coming back to post #27, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
It does not extend to lots nobody has seen, it is not a recommendation, and it says nothing about anything other than what was measured.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.