Source for the Submitting a sample figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is. Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
Second pass at: Submitting a sample: the process end to end Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Posting a small dataset on Submitting a sample. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.
What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.
Source for the Submitting a sample figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Repeat determination on the same product line months apart is the measurement that speaks to consistency, and consistency is what most buyers actually want.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
Post #3 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
What would change my mind on Submitting a sample is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Independent measurement on a lot you bought yourself is the strongest evidence an individual can produce. Everything else is somebody else's sample.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
Post #9 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
One caution on Submitting a sample: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
Worth separating two things that post #8 runs together.
I have been on both sides of the Submitting a sample argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
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.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Splitting a vial for two laboratories: how to do it without ruining both
Splitting a vial for two laboratories: how to do it without ruining both — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Something about splitting a vial does not reconcile and I would…
|
+64 | 70 | 4.4k | 13mo |
|
Blind submission and why it changes minds
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…
|
+91 | 96 | 1.1k | 21mo |
|
Choosing which test to pay for, given a fixed budget
On the subject in the title: Choosing which test to pay for, given a fixed budget Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about how a record should be read rather than about a supplier. We have…
|
+60 | 70 | 49k | 3mo |
|
Revisiting: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats
Revisiting: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin Aggregate verification…
|
+22 | 26 | 23k | 17mo |
|
[2026 update] What a purity-only report leaves out
The question in the title: What a purity-only report leaves out I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
+97 | 103 | 5.2k | 3mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reporting a discrepancy without making an allegation
On the subject in the title: Reporting a discrepancy without making an allegation Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about reporting a discrepancy directly, because I have read four threads on it…
|
+79 | 89 | 1k | 22mo |
|
Reconciling a supplier certificate with an independent result
Reconciling a supplier certificate with an independent result — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reconciling a supplier certificate: setting out the arithmetic in full,…
|
+18 | 24 | 347 | 9mo |
|
Splitting a vial for two laboratories: how to do it without ruining both — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Splitting a vial for two laboratories: how to do it without ruining both — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. Something about Splitting a…
|
+107 | 115 | 5.2k | 22mo |
|
[2026 update] What a purity-only report leaves out
The question in the title: What a purity-only report leaves out I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
+97 | 103 | 5.2k | 3mo |
|
Reporting a good result: why nobody bothers and why they should — one year on
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reporting a good result: why nobody bothers and why they should — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that. The question about Reporting a good result…
|
+19 | 27 | 4.7k | 18mo |