Talk:Chain of custody
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article Chain of custody. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Asymmetry of uncontrolled resultsResolved
The observation that uncontrolled results are more informative when favourable than when unfavourable is counter-intuitive and, as far as I can tell, correct. It should be stated as plainly as possible. — ChainCustodyChad (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
It follows from degradation being one-directional. I have made the reasoning explicit rather than leaving the reader to derive it. — BlindSampleBrid (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Now it reads as an argument rather than an assertion, which is what it needed. ✓ Done — ChainCustodyChad (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Direct supplier-to-laboratory shipment
Should the article say more about the conditions under which direct shipment approximates blinding? It only works if the supplier does not know the destination is a laboratory. — BlindSampleBrid (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
That caveat is in the sentence already. Expanding it risks turning the section into procedure rather than description. — VerifyVesna (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Storage confoundDone
"A result may be characterising the purchaser's storage" is the sentence I would put at the top of every community testing thread. — StabilityStig (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
It links to Temperature excursion, which carries the kinetics. Between them the point is well covered. ✓ Done — ColdChainCleo (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)