What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset

The question in the title: What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.

I would like to talk about documentation quality as a signal, separately from product quality.

Across the certificates I have collected, the variation in what is disclosed is much larger than the variation in the purity figures. Some name the analytical procedure; some give a number and a signature.

My hypothesis is that disclosure correlates with process control, and I would like to know whether the people who audit paperwork for a living think that is naive.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

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.

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

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.

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.