i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
#test-results 2025-12-11
Thursday39 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- half_life_hal — log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture 17:40
- ms_ms_mira — whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing 18:22
- escalation_anxiety — a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you 18:28
- ms_ms_mira — a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, i have it written down somewhere 18:43
- VialBot — Batch lookup F-1330: 7 independent reports on file, earliest 2025-06-29. 19:39
weigh it first
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
✅2🧪2
update on the earlier thing anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
right so post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
💀1🙏6
my sheet has 6 lots from MKM with a spread under a point, which is tight
food_noise_offi had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
coming back to this sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
follow up the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
nice result
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
one data point
posting my VendorInvestigate result on lot SG-1177, what do people make of it
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure, we shall see
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
💀7🤝8
right so my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
i told MKM about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due, i think
thats within range
for the archive what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
👍10🙏1✅1
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
❤️11🧪5
quick one update from 9 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
❤️2
96.8 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
coming back to this my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, i have it written down somewhere
❤️9🤝1👍14
when did you buy it
sorry to jump in one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
log the lot number
*PeptideMeter not the other one
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
Batch lookup F-1330: 7 independent reports on file, earliest 2025-06-29.
🧪13❤️4
thats a fill problem
thats not great
log the boring ones