attach the pdf
#test-results 2024-07-08
Monday35 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- area_percent — the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real 22:10
- third_shift — quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, thats just me 22:21
- luerlok — a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as… 23:01
- logrotate — log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture 23:03
- logrotate — one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally 23:14
when did you buy it
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, i have it written down somewhere
nice result
weigh it first
peptidemeter-summary-a-2601.pdf
2 pages · 260 KB · not retained in the public archive
22:00tenpence pinned a message
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
thats not great
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
one data point
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, thats just me
✅16
log the boring ones
whats the lot
selection bias
certificate said 96.8 and the independent came back 99.4, is that a problem
for the archive does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
unrelated but how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
test it again
update from 7 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both, your mileage will differ
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
99 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
😂9✅6
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
👍1😂1🤝1
thats within range
log the lot number
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached, ymmv