a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached, thats one data point
#test-results 2024-11-06
Wednesday9 messages4 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- truncation_tru — coming back to this assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem 23:08
- assay_not_purity — right so i told HJ about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 23:09
- related_subs — follow up the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier 23:12
which lab
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
coming back to this assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
right so i told HJ about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
follow up the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
one data point
[edited]log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture, ymmv