a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
#test-results 2025-12-13
Saturday53 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- VialBot — Purity check: no report on file for lot B-0114. Nothing logged either way. 20:14
- tb500_tobias — sorry to jump in i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice 20:56
- underfill_uma — which lab if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier 22:27
- peak_split — the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier 22:29
- warsaw_vial — quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for 23:48
thats a fill problem
certificate said 99.4 and the independent came back 96.8, is that a problem
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
Purity check: no report on file for lot B-0114. Nothing logged either way.
🙏13
when did you buy it
📈1🔥13
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
✅7❤️5🔥3
do you test every order or sample it
update from 13 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
🧊2⚠️7
right so does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
[edited]a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
whats the lot
sorry to jump in i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
| 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 |
*sorry, MKM
test it again
| 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 |
log the boring ones
log the lot number
genuine question do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
🧪1💀3
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
🧊3📉9
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
⚠️8
thats within range
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
weigh it first
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
i told CPC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
right so my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, from memory
Reminder set. I will post here in 6 days.
sorry to jump in anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
my sheet has 4 lots from ERP with a spread under a point, which is tight, thats one data point
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
💀1😂6❤️1
thats not great
😂3👍7⚠️1
which lab
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
👍16
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
| 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 |
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
🧊14
unrelated but is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
❤️3🤝7
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
vial-sg-1177-front.png
900 × 1200 · 687 KB · not retained in the public archive
i told WXT about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
coming back after 15 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
Digest for the week of 2025-11-03 has been published.
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
selection bias
[edited]posting my VendorInvestigate result on lot KP-0925, what do people make of it
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
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✅9👀2