Filing back in. Brenna was looking unhappy in the hall; he doesn't have the poker face of the attorneys.
SUH: given you copies of the batch sequences; also in folders, but easier to follow this way.
q: USADA 155 seen?
q: and subsequent pages, the individual processing results for each part of the run.
a: the operator has put 14 bottles in the machine, and the machine has controlled the robot to run all 14 in a row. Results all should be from that run. If it stops, it was a manual intervention. No summary sheet if run is halted.
q: and the rest are supposed to be the pages corresponding to those steps. Conclusiong about those pages?
a: not all were printed as part of this batch run.
q: which are not?
a: look at USADA 157, top block "batch name", the batch under which the sample was run. The front pags was 23016, on this it is empty. So this paper is not from conte mporaneously with the batch run; also 160, 163, 166 and 169 172 and 177, where the batch name has re-appeared.
q: so 177 is the first time the batch name appears in a run with the summary on 155.
q: keep going
a: [ lost page counts ] some in batch, some not.
q: on 155 there are values in the summary, page looks like it got cutoff.
a: os2 problem
q: did you try to match summary results with subsequent pages.
a: the numbers are different.
q: so there's stuff in the pages that is not in the batch?
a: we don't know where it's from.
q: find the pages that are supposed to match...
a: mixcal 003... there are different numbers...
q: USADA 179 and USADA 155 on screen
[ Mclaren is looking perplexed ]
q: I can't see the numbers at all. They're different. This is the result, and this is supposed to be the summary. But they have different values.
q: do you know where the data from USADA 179 comes from?
q: other examples of data not matching summary sheet?
a: yes, it goes all the way through.
q: Let's look at the B, USADA 331, which appears to be the batch summary.
q: looking at the following pages, supposedly supporint the summary, what pages don't match.
a: some do not appear to be part of the batch. 2nd mix cal irms 358 miss.
q: so the data doesn't match.
q: describe what reinjection is?
a: injecting again and again.
q: are the logs consistent with re-injecting?
a: yes; we don't generally know, but it appears they are reinjecting samples and standards.
q: what would that mean, isn't that ok.
a: It's ok if documented in a proper chain of custody -- even running someone eles's samples in the middle. Here we have no idea what is going on. If an engineer came back with a log with gaps like this, I'd be suspicious. Maybe they are in a rush to get home, and pick the best 5 of 10 samples as the contemporaneous results.
q: can you describe manual reprocessing?
a: there are as many strategies as there are operators. It's subjective interpretation.
q: please sit at the computer, and please describe computer.
a: it's very old with very old software, a 486.
q: because it can't run on newer computer
a: right -- because of disk partitioning and floppy install; if processor to fast, software breaks. good for it's time, but it's time was 1987.
q: this is what LNDD has on its isoprime?
q: used for S17 samples.
BARNET: exact same software?
a: same version.
q: walk through how manual reprocessing works -- which peak identification and background subtraction.
Ooo- we're getting a color demo, and the resolution is low enough it's big and visible on the plasmas
McLaren: Botre speaks to software versions.
a: 167-2 change was change for head amplifier, doesn't affect integration.
YOUNG: objecting -- head amplifier was an issues.
BARNETT: not the exact version. This is why we can't properly do cross.
[ They don't want to see this demo ]
a: we can load 167-2 if you like?
BARNETT: that they didn't do it yet, we shouldn't do it.
BRUNET: we decided we'd do this. If it's 5 minutes, OK.