thats a fill problem
✅9🧪8
#test-results 2024-09-11
Wednesday38 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- area_percent — then it is a usable report and the layout is cosmetics 11:34
- karl_fischer — the third page is the bit that differs most in my experience. more of a verification framing, sample provenance as stated by submitter, that kind of thing 12:04
- karl_fischer — the Mokemei sample i sent there came back with an appearance note and a photograph of the vial as received, which i had not seen before 14:20
- warsaw_vial — similar ballpark, slightly different bundling. i am not going to quote figures because they move and i would be out of date within a month 14:44
- area_percent — meaning if you only ever use one lab you will never know whether their number is generous. two labs on the same powder is the only way you find out 16:21
selection bias
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
nice result
thats within range
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
🔥2🧊3📉14
sent one to Medutest this time for variety. report is laid out quite differently to what i am used to
different how, is it better
different, not obviously better. more framing around the sample and the submission, less bare-numbers
does it carry a method line and a wavelength
yes, and the gradient
then it is a usable report and the layout is cosmetics
✅9
medutest-MT-2601-swb-sema.pdf
3 pages · 340 KB · not retained in the public archive
the third page is the bit that differs most in my experience. more of a verification framing, sample provenance as stated by submitter, that kind of thing
as stated by submitter is a phrase i want on every report we file. it is the honest caveat and most reports leave it implicit
it also makes it very clear that a report is not a vendor endorsement, which people conflate constantly
so a report is not verification of a vendor
a report verifies a measurement on a sample. it cannot verify a vendor, a supply chain, or your next order
the review-and-verification framing is useful and it is also where the confusion comes from. people see verified and hear guaranteed
and then quote it in #vendor-talk as proof. that is on us to correct, not on the lab
what did your numbers come back as
98.3% purity, 9.55mg on a 10mg label
*9.55, i typed 9.5 in the other channel earlier
the two decimals are nice. plenty of reports round to one
and the second decimal is mostly decorative at that precision, but i would rather have it and ignore it than not have it
the Mokemei sample i sent there came back with an appearance note and a photograph of the vial as received, which i had not seen before
a photo is a good idea
it is, because it closes one gap in our chain of custody. we can at least see the thing they tested looked like the thing you posted
one gap out of five
😅8
one is better than none
cost comparison?
similar ballpark, slightly different bundling. i am not going to quote figures because they move and i would be out of date within a month
sensible. prices in this space age badly in an archive
the reason to use a second lab is not price anyway, it is calibration
meaning?
meaning if you only ever use one lab you will never know whether their number is generous. two labs on the same powder is the only way you find out
which is exactly what i did, i split this vial
then post both and let us look at them together