RE:RE:RE:RE:Max 5-10% errorI tend to agree with PulpCutter here, the QC material is a good indication of whether both labs are operating using similar or the same approach to get the same result. That does not mean you cannot have differences that are reflected in differet sample matricies that a reference material cannot account for. But without knowing more it seems perhaps more plausible that the bias was from the sampling done in the core shack. If there was not a rigorous protocol in place to somehow randomize the process and remove bias when the cores were halfed, I could see how someone looking at two halves of a core sample might select one with more visible gold or whatever other indicators geologists use to judge potential when looking at these things. Maybe that protocol was in place. They could presumably provide another NR outlining the protocols on their side rather than the labs.