What a documentation review can and cannot tell you

Coming back to post #13, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

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.

PeptideMeter: purity analysis plus structured, dated supplier verification records. Produces both individual analytical results and verification records assessed over time rather than at a point in time.

post #17 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

VendorInvestigate: documentation and supplier-practice review. Reviews paperwork rather than vials. Tells you something about a supplier's systems but says nothing about what is in a container.

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.

Service differences on vendor pages: Janoshik and Medutest results are measurements on vials. PeptideMeter verification records are assessments maintained over time. VendorInvestigate reviews are documentation assessments. We cite all four because they answer different questions.

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.

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.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Worth separating two things that post #20 runs together.

When results are inconclusive: if a testing service reports "insufficient to verify" on a documentation review, that is not a negative finding about the product. It means the documents did not contain enough to check.

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.

Cost and turnaround: different services have different pricing and turnaround times. Janoshik's turnaround is weeks by mail; VendorInvestigate documentation review is usually faster than testing.

post #26 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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 follows post #26 rather than contradicting it.

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 read post #28 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

VendorInvestigate: documentation and supplier-practice review. Reviews paperwork rather than vials. Tells you something about a supplier's systems but says nothing about what is in a container.