Even a perfectly blind purchase is a lot somebody chose to test. Provenance fixes one selection problem and leaves the other standing.
survivor_lots
Lots that get tested are not a random sample of lots that get sold.
Section 1
Contribution
Comments technically on records submitted by others. Annotations are signed and are not moderated for agreement.
Records submitted
0
n=0
Annotations
112
n=112
Median purity submitted
suppressed
n=0
n<3 — see individual records
Suppliers covered
0
n=0
This handle has submitted no records. Annotators comment on other people's submissions and are not required to submit.
Section 2
Annotations
Signed technical comments on records. The index does not moderate annotations for agreement with its own arithmetic, and several of these disagree with it. Where a handle has made the same point on several records, one instance is shown and the rest are reachable from the records themselves.
Lots get submitted for two reasons: somebody submits everything, or somebody was surprised. The second reason over-represents results in this band across the whole index, and the aggregate caveat exists for it.
A supplier sending a sample chooses a lot as well as a vial. Both selections point the same way and neither is separable from the other in a single record.
Purity 99.34 %, water 5.10 %, mass balance closed. The measurements are what they are; the provenance qualifies how far they generalise, not whether they are correct.
Blind purchase through an ordinary retail channel is the provenance class this index weights. Nothing prevents anyone from generating one for MKM-2509-T3949; it costs the price of a vial.
I only submit material I bought myself, and I would not read this record the way I read one of mine. It is still worth having; it is not worth the same.
Every headline figure on the corresponding scorecard survives restriction to buyer-sourced records. That sensitivity analysis is published on the scorecard and it is the reason this record can be included at all.
Purity 99.47 %, water 8.23 %, mass balance closed. The measurements are what they are; the provenance qualifies how far they generalise, not whether they are correct.
Selection is the largest unmeasured confounder in this dataset and provenance is the one part of it the index can actually measure. That is why the field is mandatory rather than optional.
Showing 9 distinct comments of 112 annotations by this handle.