On the subject in the title: Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study Working notes rather than a conclusion.
Publishing an inconvenient result, and specifically the version of it that the documentation does not cover. The maintained page handles the general case well and stops exactly where my question starts.
Setting out the gap in case it is a gap in the page rather than a gap in what is known.
I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Checked the publishing an inconvenient result claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Verification records are dated because they expire in usefulness. A result from two years ago describes a lot from two years ago.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Since publishing an inconvenient result keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
Combining a chromatographic result with a documentation review gives a more complete picture than two chromatographic results, because the failure modes are different.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.
On publishing an inconvenient result I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Asking the supplier before publishing a discrepancy is the convention here. Most discrepancies are explained by handling or method and asking costs a day.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Post #11 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Publishing an inconvenient result was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
I read post #11 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on publishing an inconvenient result. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
On post #11 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Repeat determination on the same product line months apart is the measurement that speaks to consistency, and consistency is what most buyers actually want.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Post #15 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
I would be cautious about generalising from the publishing an inconvenient result example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
Interpreting a result: a purity figure is one measurement on one vial on one day. Agreement across two services is much stronger. A single high number does not establish a pattern.
Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is.
Publishing an inconvenient result is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.
Post #20 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
Coming back to post #22, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
A record with four results over sixteen months is a thin record rather than a bad one, and the honest description says which.
Post #24 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.
Worth separating two things that post #22 runs together.
Where the publishing an inconvenient result discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
Worth stating the null on publishing an inconvenient result before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
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.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.