thats within range
#test-results 2026-04-09
Thursday19 messages3 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- u100_pat — post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later 19:29
- blind_submit — i told SWB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 19:35
- blind_submit — a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier 19:55
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind, we shall see
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
🤝1
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally, anyway
🤝3
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
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 / 10mgmy sheet has 5 lots from GGPeps with a spread under a point, which is tight
[edited]log the boring ones
🧪3📉1
i told SWB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
update from 8 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both, thats just me
genuine question log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
unrelated but i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
attach the pdf
which lab
nice result
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
chromatogram-overlay.png
1240 × 720 · 939 KB · not retained in the public archive