log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
#test-results 2025-04-07
Monday31 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- alt_ast_ali — how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier 20:53
- VialBot — On this day 6 years ago this channel logged 137 messages. 21:09
- alt_ast_ali — i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice 23:15
- triumph_watch — one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally 23:37
- first_and_last_four — i told BCH about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 23:38
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind, happy to be corrected
[edited]ok so 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
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 / 10mgassay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
thats not great
On this day 6 years ago this channel logged 137 messages.
update from 8 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
right so my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
one data point
98.6 against a certificate of 99.2 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
😂1🎉1📈2
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
log the boring ones
right so i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
coming back after 16 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern, ill dig out the number
posting my PeptideMeter result on lot A-2601, what do people make of it
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
attach the pdf
whats the lot
⚠️5❤️2
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
| 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 |
nice result
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
📈6🧊2
i told BCH about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due