follow up assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
#test-results 2026-05-05
Tuesday41 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- seoul_swirl — anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial 09:59
- VialBot — Digest for the week of 2025-10-18 has been published. 10:03
- nettle_notes — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 10:40
- VialBot — Assay note: WXT lot C-4402 reported at 97.4% of label content. 13:41
- u100_pat — how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier 13:47
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
🧊3📈1🔥2
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
quick one if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
🧊2👀1
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
🔥6🙏10✅13
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
Digest for the week of 2025-10-18 has been published.
🧪5🤝15
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
🙏2
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, not advice obviously
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
📉7🧪6💀1
my sheet has 2 lots from SWB with a spread under a point, which is tight
Purity check: no report on file for lot F-1330. Nothing logged either way.
⚠️4
log the boring ones
log the lot number
do you test every order or sample it
coming back to this coming back after 20 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
follow up sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
update from 1 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
whats the lot
96.8 against a certificate of 98.1 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
thats within range, someone check my working
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
🤝6
i told QST about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
Assay note: WXT lot C-4402 reported at 97.4% of label content.
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
😂13🤝10
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
site-rotation-map.png
1000 × 700 · 188 KB · not retained in the public archive
attach the pdf
👀1🎉15📉5