update from 24 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
#test-results 2026-04-03
Friday40 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- thirty_one_g — how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year 13:12
- yyz_vial — the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind 16:40
- yyz_vial — genuine question my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more 17:22
- boots_supply — one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally 17:48
whats the lot
one data point
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
[edited]selection bias
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
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
| 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 |
👍17🔥11🤝6
coming back to this a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, someone check my working
my sheet has 7 lots from WWB with a spread under a point, which is tight
🧊1🔥1
thats a fill problem
ok so 99.2 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question, not advice obviously
thats not great
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
weigh it first
log the boring ones
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
coming back after 24 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
which lab
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture, ill dig out the number
[edited]the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
[edited]🧪12📉7💀1
thats within range
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
log the lot number
genuine question my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
✅17😂15
test it again
i told MKM about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
attach the pdf
nice result
when did you buy it
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
posting my Janoshik result on lot F-1330, what do people make of it
🎉7😂8
certificate said 99 and the independent came back 96.8, is that a problem
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
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