Batch number: difference between revisions
Diff·revision 18 → 19·11:07, 12 Jun 2025
Difference between revision 18 and revision 19 of Batch number. 5 lines changed; the page grew by 555 bytes.
| Revision 18 — 20:05, 19 May 2025 AnalyticalAnnie (talk) add the laboratory accreditation status, or say plainly that it is not stated 3,731 bytes ±0 | Revision 19 — 11:07, 12 Jun 2025 BlindSampleBrid (talk) add the second-opinion point: two services, one lot, is a stronger record 4,286 bytes +555 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 32 | The check most often omitted is the last. A certificate whose retest date precedes its release date, or whose test date precedes its manufacture date, is defective on its face and can be identified without expertise. | 32 | The check most often omitted is the last. A certificate whose retest date precedes its release date, or whose test date precedes its manufacture date, is defective on its face and can be identified without expertise. |
| 33 | 33 | ||
| + | 34 | == What a batch number cannot do == | |
| + | 35 | A batch number does not establish that the lot exists as described, that the certificate is genuine — see [[Test report forgery]] — or that the vial was filled from that lot. It is a pointer, and a pointer is only as good as what it points to.{{r|usp1503}} | |
| + | 36 | ||
| + | 37 | It also does not survive [[Repackaging|repackaging]] unless the repackager records the original identifier. A vial relabelled with a new identifier and no back-reference has been disconnected from every determination ever made on the material it contains. | |
| + | 38 | ||
| 34 | == References == | 39 | == References == |
| 35 | {{reflist}} | 40 | {{reflist}} |