The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there — what changed since

The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the maintainers asked for.

• Compound: tirzepatide
• Independent testing: Janoshik
• Method as reported: reversed-phase HPLC, 214 nm
• Result: 96.9% area
• Certificate figure for the same lot: 99.1%

I am not drawing a conclusion about the supplier from one lot and I would ask that nobody else does either. I am adding a data point to a record.

Picking up post #5: that is the part I would want checked first.

Temporal patterns: if results from a supplier were good two years ago but have deteriorated recently, that is information. If they have been consistent over years, that is also information.

On post #8 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Multiple services on one lot: agreement across two independent laboratories is stronger than a high number from one. Our vendor pages deliberately mix services for that reason.

Temporal patterns: if results from a supplier were good two years ago but have deteriorated recently, that is information. If they have been consistent over years, that is also information.

post #32 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Blind submission is worth the effort: have someone else relabel the sample so neither you nor the laboratory knows which supplier it came from until the result is back. Blind results change minds; self-selected results do not.