my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, i have it written down somewhere
#test-results 2024-12-03
Tuesday17 messages2 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- acetate_ash — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, i have it written down somewhere 13:42
- acetate_ash — i told FGP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 14:12
- monoisotopic — assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, n of 1 obviously 14:47
- monoisotopic — anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs 16:48
i told FGP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, n of 1 obviously
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier, anyway
*Medutest not the other one
thats not great
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
coming back to this the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, thats just me
whats the lot
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
test it again
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
👍6📉1
log the boring ones
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
log the lot number
peptidemeter-summary-b-0329.pdf
2 pages · 909 KB · not retained in the public archive
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1