This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #60 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on submitting a sample. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Worth separating two things that post #58 runs together.
Submitting a sample 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.
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.
The step people skip is the one I have spelled out.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this submitting a sample discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
Coming back to post #69, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
What I can speak to on submitting a sample is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.
Post #73 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Since submitting a sample 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.
How to submit a sample: contact the service directly. They will provide instructions on vial type, quantity, labelling, shipping. Following their instructions exactly ensures results are interpretable.
Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.
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.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Post #76 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Reporting rather than recommending, on submitting a sample. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Picking up post #78: that is the part I would want checked first.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on submitting a sample, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
I read post #80 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Worth stating the null on submitting a sample before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
On submitting a sample 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.
The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
On post #84 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Independent measurement on a lot you bought yourself is the strongest evidence an individual can produce. Everything else is somebody else's sample.
I have three months of notes on submitting a sample and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.