a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
✅2
#test-results 2025-08-17
Sunday52 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ms_ms_mira — follow up sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm 16:40
- VialBot — On this day 4 years ago this channel logged 21 messages. 17:02
- bea_reconstitutes — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ log the boring results too. a channel that… 18:07
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
| 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 |
❤️1
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
📈5✅1🔥5
update on the earlier thing a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
posting my Medutest result on lot H-2814, what do people make of it
🎉6⚠️6😂2
selection bias
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
one data point
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
nice result
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
coming back after 1 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
genuine question post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
coming back to this the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
do you test every order or sample it
which lab
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
test it again
Reminder for rezept_rolf: dose day is today. Set 7 days ago.
👍1
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
👍1
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
[edited]log the boring ones
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
🤝2🧪1📈12
attach the pdf
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
99.2 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
whats the lot
thats a fill problem
[edited]weigh it first
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
💀1
my sheet has 3 lots from GGPeps with a spread under a point, which is tight
quick one update from 24 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
[edited]follow up sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
✅4📉16👀1
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
thats not great, i could be wrong
On this day 4 years ago this channel logged 21 messages.
⚠️1🎉11
certificate said 99.4 and the independent came back 99, is that a problem
for the archive i told TFC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
when did you buy it
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
log the lot number
[edited]weights-monthly.csv
183 rows · not retained in the public archive
🧊18
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
⚠️12👍17🤝8