assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
#test-results 2025-10-05
Sunday38 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- quiet_head_qi — is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share 20:22
- lot_number_lou — how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year 20:53
- cold_start_cy — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 21:51
- mag_citrate — a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you my sheet has 2 lots from GL Biochem with a spread under a point, which is tight 22:17
- cold_start_cy — i told GGPeps about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 22:42
one data point
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
📉12🔥8
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
weigh it first
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
attach the pdf
right so the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
📉3❤️3
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
do you test every order or sample it
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
coming back after 1 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
selection bias
thats a fill problem
whats the lot
thats within range
right so weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
📈4✅3🙏14
update from 22 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both, thats one data point
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, i have it written down somewhere
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
my sheet has 2 lots from GL Biochem with a spread under a point, which is tight
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
which lab
nice result
📈14🧪1
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
when did you buy it
i told GGPeps about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
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 / 10mg🎉1❤️2📈14
test it again
log the lot number