Public comment period · §3
Draft standard CEI-MS-08: Related-substances profiling and… — disposition
The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.
§3Disposition and amendments
§3.1Disposition table
Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.
| Reference | Respondent | Point raised | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/006 | Dr Amara Vandergraaf | Acceptance criteria are expressed in terms specific to one instrument family | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/009 | Dr Xenia Uttridge industry | The additional determinations required would materially increase release testing cost | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/003 | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/005 | Dr Hyacinth Oyelaran-Steen | Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them | Accepted |
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/004 | Dr Ilona Mbatha-Fredriksen | A sortable table implies a comparison the underlying data do not support | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/001 | Dr Quentin Enthoven | The document set should be published in translation | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/008 | Dr Séverine Oduya-Kaltenbrunner industry | The document should not describe uses outside the approved indication | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/007 | Dr Liesbeth Achterberg | Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/002 | Dr Emiliana Ollerenshaw | The draft prescribes a procedure where it should state performance | Accepted |
| 9 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 3 | The submission is accepted and the draft is amended as proposed. The amendment is recorded in the amendment log of the document it changed and is traceable to the numbered submission. |
| Accepted in part | 2 | Part of the submission is accepted and part is not. The secretariat response states which part is which and on what ground the remainder was declined. |
| Noted, no amendment | 2 | The submission raises a point the Institute accepts but that does not require a change to the draft, most often because the draft already states it elsewhere. The location is given in the response. |
| Not accepted | 2 | The submission is not accepted. The secretariat response gives the reason. A submission that is not accepted remains published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it. |
§3.3Resulting amendments
- Acceptance criteria are expressed in terms specific to one instrument family — arising from DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/006. The acceptance criteria are now expressed in instrument-independent quantities, with the conversion from the common manufacturer-specific reporting units given in a note so that a laboratory can check conformance without recalculating by hand.
- The additional determinations required would materially increase release testing cost — arising from DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/009. One of the two determinations is now required only where the stated risk factor is present, with the factor defined in the scope, and the other is retained as a universal requirement with the reasoning stated. The submission is identified as an industry…
- The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/003. A single term is now used throughout for each defined concept, and the glossary entry is linked at first use within each section rather than once per document.
- Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them — arising from DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/005. Every quantitative claim now carries the determination that produced it at the point of use, and figures obtained by non-comparable methods are no longer presented in the same row or sentence.
- The draft prescribes a procedure where it should state performance — arising from DRAFT-RELATED-SUBS/002. The prescriptive clauses are converted to performance requirements, the specific conditions are retained as a worked example clearly labelled as one, and a laboratory using a different validated procedure that meets the stated performance reports a conformant…
References cited on this page
References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute
Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-CP-089/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-related-substances-standard/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026