my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
#test-results 2025-01-19
Sunday26 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
test it again
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
📉6🤝4
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
posting my PeptideMeter result on lot H-2814, what do people make of it
📉5
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure, happy to be corrected
attach the pdf
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
i told TFC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
🎉1📉11
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
selection bias
update from 15 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
one data point
🙏17
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, we shall see
🎉9
thats not great
thats a fill problem
right so the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
coming back after 2 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
[edited]