the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
#test-results 2025-11-08
Saturday20 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- madrid_mg — assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, for what its worth 20:19
- noct.titrate — anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier 20:21
- noct.titrate — genuine question a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier 20:59
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
nice result
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, for what its worth
👍11
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
thats not great
update on the earlier thing anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
selection bias
one data point
attach the pdf
genuine question a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier, ymmv
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
certificate said 98.1 and the independent came back 98.6, is that a problem
thats a fill problem