User talk:LotTraceLuka

Bachem Holding (Suzhou) reports agreement between certificates and independent reports. Since none of those samples was drawn blind, the agreement establishes that two measurements of one vial agreed and nothing about the lot. Would you object to the section saying that in those terms? — SecondarySrc_Seb (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You are right. The section now says what the agreement does establish and what it cannot. — LotTraceLuka (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the aggregate pass-rate figure from Bachem Holding (Suzhou). The denominator is not knowable from purchaser submissions, so the percentage was arithmetic performed on a number that does not exist. Everything else in the section stands. — PriorAuthPaz (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No argument — the denominator does not exist and the percentage was arithmetic on nothing. — LotTraceLuka (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Given your edits around Bachem Holding (Suzhou), you might find the working-group pages useful — Project:Analytical working group, Project:Pharmacology working group and Project:Clinical evidence working group each keep a short priority list, and the priorities are mostly things one person can finish in an afternoon. — PurityClaimPia (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. The afternoon-sized framing is what got me to click; the open-ended lists elsewhere never do. — LotTraceLuka (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)