follow up a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
#test-results 2025-03-19
Wednesday17 messages3 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- lot_number_lou — what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern, ill dig out the number 20:01
- lot_number_lou — i told ERP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 20:33
- lot_number_lou — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 20:34
- lot_number_lou — is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure 20:35
- lot_number_lou — one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally 21:03
update on the earlier thing if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern, ill dig out the number
one data point
certificate said 99.2 and the independent came back 99.4, is that a problem
i told ERP 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
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
🤝10😂18
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
when did you buy it
📉2😂6
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
weigh it first
✅4🧪4⚠️1
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
selection bias
attach the pdf
[edited]whats the lot