one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
#test-results 2025-07-27
Sunday40 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- snac_and_water — 98.1 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question 19:06
- blank_run — how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year 20:16
- salt_bridge — the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier 20:41
i told QST about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
update on the earlier thing if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier, someone check my working
*Janoshik not the other one
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
update from 15 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
right so whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
test it again
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
98.1 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
⚠️1🧊18❤️7
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
👍3
nice result
👀1👍1😂10
for the archive do you test every order or sample it
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 not great
right so assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
log the boring ones
| 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 |
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
coming back to this posting my Janoshik result on lot C-4402, what do people make of it
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice, thats one data point
🎉8🔥7
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
🔥5🙏4🧊12
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
thats a fill problem
log the lot number
right so a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
🤝16🎉4🧊2
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, happy to be corrected
🎉2🧪2
attach the pdf
⚠️6
weigh it first
when did you buy it
coming back after 17 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
Verification log updated: HJ — evidence added, status unchanged.
my sheet has 2 lots from ERP with a spread under a point, which is tight
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
whats the lot
one data point