do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
lot-log.csv
129 rows · not retained in the public archive
#test-results 2026-06-28
Sunday52 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- reed_returns — how much does sample handling on my end affect the number 17:37
- HPLC_Hank — the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, take that with a pinch of salt 17:59
- reed_returns — certificate said 97.4 and the independent came back 96.8, is that a problem 18:29
- flint_fills — the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real 18:44
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
thats not great
update on the earlier thing post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, ymmv
🧪3
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
weigh it first
🙏1
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
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 / 10mglog the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
👀15🤝10
posting my VendorInvestigate result on lot G-0641, what do people make of it
[edited]assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
comment_fatigueupdate on the earlier thing post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and…
ok so if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier, someone check my working
🧪1💀7
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
when did you buy it
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier, take that with a pinch of salt
🙏7👍8
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
certificate said 97.4 and the independent came back 96.8, is that a problem
🔥15🧊17
whats the lot
test it again
😂2🧊1📉8
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
🧊3😂3✅15
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
✅3🧊5
private_script_prilog the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false…
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
thats within range
🤝18🙏5
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
update from 23 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
🙏1
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
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 / 10mgweigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure, ask me again in a month
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1, i could be wrong
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
selection bias
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
📈9✅4
which lab
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, take that with a pinch of salt
99.2 against a certificate of 99 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question, someone check my working
sorry to jump in sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
log the boring ones
nice result
ok so coming back after 11 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
thats a fill problem
attach the pdf
i told CPC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
99 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
update from 23 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both