if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
#test-results 2025-02-18
Tuesday41 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ms_ms_mira — certificate said 97.4 and the independent came back 98.1, is that a problem 19:53
- void_volume — how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year 21:10
- void_volume — my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them 21:14
- eight_mm — while im here my sheet has 7 lots from SSA with a spread under a point, which is tight 21:53
- step_one_sian — does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones 22:19
log the boring ones
lot bought purity assay/label
A-2418 2025-03 99.1% 9.6 / 10mg
A-2601 2025-08 98.7% 9.8 / 10mg
B-0114 2026-01 99.3% 9.4 / 10mg
B-0329 2026-04 98.9% 9.9 / 10mgwhats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
test it again
certificate said 97.4 and the independent came back 98.1, is that a problem
weights-monthly.csv
371 rows · not retained in the public archive
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
update from 16 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
thats a fill problem
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
📉1💀1
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, i have it written down somewhere
99.2 against a certificate of 99 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question, thats just me
selection bias
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
attach the pdf
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
⚠️5
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
🔥3😂1⚠️3
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
coming back after 13 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
while im here my sheet has 7 lots from SSA with a spread under a point, which is tight
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
one data point
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
when did you buy it
💀3🎉18🧊8
thats not great
| 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 |
whats the lot
🤝1✅15📈1
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
🎉10👍2🧊3
which lab
🤝4👀12
thats within range
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
coming back to this anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
😂1