my sheet has 6 lots from WXT with a spread under a point, which is tight
👍12🤝1
#test-results 2025-06-28
Saturday51 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- bac_water_bill — my sheet has 6 lots from WXT with a spread under a point, which is tight 16:40
- LC_MS_Lena — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 17:26
- VialBot — Verification log updated: MKM — evidence added, status unchanged. 17:52
- food_noise_off — sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm 19:02
- turnaround_tam — for the archive is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure 21:38
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
thats within range
update from 16 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
slightly off topic but if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
selection bias
❤️1🔥3
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure, someone check my working
unrelated but i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
📈1🧪1
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
🤝12
update on the earlier thing whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
i told Homopeptide about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
genuine question certificate said 97.4 and the independent came back 98.1, is that a problem
nice result
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, n of 1 obviously
17:50tenpence pinned a message to this channel
slightly off topic but i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
Verification log updated: MKM — evidence added, status unchanged.
💀3
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, take that with a pinch of salt
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
log the boring ones
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
[edited]how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
📈7
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
whats the lot
👍6
unrelated but one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
*that should say weekly
Assay note: FGP lot B-0329 reported at 98.6% of label content.
when did you buy it
update on the earlier thing the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, n of 1 obviously
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
[edited]⚠️8👀11🧪1
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
*that should say weekly
while im here 98.6 against a certificate of 98.1 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
follow up does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
quick one if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1, ask me again in a month
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
unrelated but how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
thats not great
thats a fill problem
😂1👍1
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
thats not great
*that should say weekly
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
for the archive is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
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 / 10mglog the lot number