unrelated but a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
weights-monthly.csv
338 rows · not retained in the public archive
#test-results 2025-01-13
Monday37 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- nordic_price_nils — is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled 20:18
- batch_bandit — i told TFC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due, i think 20:33
- assay_not_purity — right so whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next 20:53
- batch_bandit — log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture 21:43
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier, anyway
thats within range
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 / 10mgthats a fill problem
📈15📉9🧊1
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
log the boring ones
i told TFC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due, i think
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 / 10mga result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
update from 22 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
right so whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
💀11🧪6🧊11
my sheet has 7 lots from ERP with a spread under a point, which is tight
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
[edited]follow up 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
thats not great
🎉10🙏6💀10
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
genuine question how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
when did you buy it
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier, take that with a pinch of salt
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
nice result
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
🙏4😂9✅1
which lab
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such, your mileage will differ
do you test every order or sample it
| 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 |
97.4 against a certificate of 96.8 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
selection bias
log the lot number