i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
❤️1💀1
#test-results 2025-01-14
Tuesday41 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- fasting_insulin — for the archive what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern 20:19
- luerlok — sorry to jump in 97.4 against a certificate of 96.8 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question post the lot, the purchase month, the… 21:32
- batch_variance — i told ERP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 22:32
coming back to this log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
my sheet has 9 lots from GGPeps with a spread under a point, which is tight
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you, someone check my working
coming back after 24 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
weigh it first
📉6🧪9
for the archive what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
😂2🤝8✅2
ok so do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, n of 1 obviously
👀1
selection bias
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
📉1👀2🧪2
update from 3 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both, happy to be corrected
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
thats not great
thats a fill problem
do you test every order or sample it
[edited]i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
😂1
test it again
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
thats within range
🔥2
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
sorry to jump in 97.4 against a certificate of 96.8 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
🔥7👀14🎉2
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
🔥8❤️1⚠️2
whats the lot
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
while im here certificate said 98.1 and the independent came back 97.4, is that a problem
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
😂6
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
vial-g-0641-front.png
900 × 1200 · 159 KB · not retained in the public archive
follow up underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
i told ERP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
💀3🤝3❤️7
which lab
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
coming back to this one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally