underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
#test-results 2025-06-18
- LC_MS_Lena — 99.2 against a certificate of 99 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is… 19:52
- LC_MS_Lena — assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem 19:56
- LC_MS_Lena — the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real 20:32
- LC_MS_Lena — my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more 20:40
- knees_first — my sheet has 9 lots from GL Biochem with a spread under a point, which is tight 20:58
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
one data point
99.2 against a certificate of 99 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
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 / 10mgwhen did you buy it
my sheet has 9 lots from GL Biochem with a spread under a point, which is tight
thats a fill problem
do you test every order or sample it