LabKate said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.

LabKate said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Dr.ReproEndo said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.

Dr.ReproEndo said:

Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers. Does the report name the batch on your vial. Is the date consistent with when that batch existed. Is it addressed to the vendor or to the person who paid for the test. Was the sample taken from general stock or supplied by the vendor. A perfect certificate for a different batch is worth nothing, and vendor-supplied samples are the most common way a genuine report ends up misleading.