one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
#test-results 2025-11-26
unrelated but a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
Digest for the week of 2025-08-26 has been published.
i told MKM about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
when did you buy it
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
coming back to this my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
log the boring ones
whats the lot
one data point
[edited]posting my VendorInvestigate result on lot B-0329, what do people make of it
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
which lab
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice, not advice obviously
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, for what its worth
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
slightly off topic but log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
attach the pdf
update from 1 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both, your mileage will differ
thats not great
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure