ok so i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice, from memory
😂2📉9🧪2
#test-results 2026-02-02
Monday48 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- appetite_back — does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier 18:30
- tb500_tobias — i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such 18:45
- appetite_back — post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, take that with a pinch of salt 19:26
- tb500_tobias — one data point underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure 20:48
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, we shall see
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
weigh it first
🎉1📉14
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached, i could be wrong
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, ask me again in a month
transit_degradei test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, we shall see
one data point
[edited]medutest-report-a-2418.pdf
3 pages · 749 KB · not retained in the public archive
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real, for what its worth
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, i have it written down somewhere
i told GGPeps about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
log the lot number
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, happy to be corrected
🙏2📈1❤️12
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
⚠️6😂16
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
✅12🤝6⚠️10
test it again
🤝3
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier, we shall see
97.4 against a certificate of 99.2 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
attach the pdf
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
coming back after 24 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
thats within range
whats the lot
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, take that with a pinch of salt
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
thats a fill problem
when did you buy it
log the boring ones
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, we shall see
update from 6 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
thats not great
do you test every order or sample it
which lab
🔥8
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
one data point
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
⚠️9🧊4😂8
selection bias
🙏8⚠️3
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by