post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
#test-results 2025-04-20
Sunday33 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- alt_ast_ali — a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier 14:21
- salt_bridge — i told MKM about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 16:26
- van_isle_vial — for the archive anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs 17:37
thats not great
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
💀13👍5😂7
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
unrelated but log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real, we shall see
👍1
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
test it again
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
quick one i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
update from 20 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both, i could be wrong
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
❤️2🙏1
i told MKM about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
📉5
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
selection bias
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
weigh it first
which lab
for the archive anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
lot-log.csv
458 rows · not retained in the public archive
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
log the boring ones
log the lot number
site-rotation-map.png
1000 × 700 · 652 KB · not retained in the public archive
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
my sheet has 4 lots from QYB with a spread under a point, which is tight
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
when did you buy it