i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
#test-results 2026-06-13
Saturday28 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- salt_bridge — if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier 22:56
- declared_value — a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing… 22:58
- HPLC_Hank — i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such 23:09
- warsaw_vial — is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit 23:42
- declared_value — does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones 23:44
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
😂10✅8
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
🧊18👍6
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
thats a fill problem
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
📉12👀6📈16
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
which lab
📈14🔥13
thats not great
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
log the lot number
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, happy to be corrected
[edited]log the boring ones
test it again
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
97.4 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
certificate said 97.4 and the independent came back 99.2, is that a problem
📈8🔥2
slightly off topic but i told Homopeptide about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
update on the earlier thing one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
medutest-report-b-0114.pdf
3 pages · 200 KB · not retained in the public archive
❤️10
Digest for the week of 2026-01-27 has been published.
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
📈10🤝1
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
whats the lot