sorry to jump in a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
#test-results 2025-08-20
Wednesday47 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
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 / 10mgwhats the lot
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
👍8
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
96.8 against a certificate of 99.2 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
one data point
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 / 10mgi told BCH about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
do you test every order or sample it
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
test it again
thats within range
🧊5📈8👍1
ok so a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
💀12⚠️7
if you graphed every result this channel has collected the story is not contamination, it is short fill
which makes sense. purification is a solved problem for these sequences. accurate small-mass filling is a manufacturing problem and it is harder than people think
how hard can it be to put 10mg in a vial
you are dispensing a fluffy low-density powder, or lyophilising a measured solution and hoping the fill volume was right, in a room with humidity in it.
10mg is a very small target.
plus or minus 5% on 10mg is 0.5mg and that is a good line.
plus or minus 15% is common and nobody advertises their tolerance
mine came back 8.4 on a 10 label and i spent two days angry before reading this channel
8.4 is bang on the median of what gets posted here honestly
every content result i have logged, sorted
content results i have logged, all 10 mg labels
10.2 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.4
9.2 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.6 8.4
8.4 8.1 7.9 7.6 6.8
n = 17, four vendors, three labs, two years
median ~9.0, and only three results at or over label
not a random sample. people test when they are
worried, so read this as a worst-ish case not a
market average.📊16😬7
so basically assume you have less than the label says
assume the label is a nominal figure. that is the safest reading and it costs you nothing to hold
and this is why reconstitution maths done off the label is shakier than people realise. your mg per ml is only as good as the mg
which is a whole other rabbit hole in #reconstitution
does anyone adjust for it
some people do and i am not going to tell you to. that turns into dosing advice quickly and it is not my place
the honest framing is: know your number, or know that you do not know it. what you then do is your business
the trial doses everyone quotes were with a product where the label meant the label, which is the part that gets skipped
the trial everyone quotes the dose from
that note is the whole reason i keep linking trials in here
👍9
ok so worst case scenario, what does an actually bad result look like
a bad result is content well under label AND purity under 95 AND an unassigned impurity over 1%. all three together
one of the three on its own is a shrug
GGPeps result i saw posted last year had all three and that did move the room
it did, and it also got repeated as GGPeps is poison for a year off one sample, which was not what the result said
*off two samples, there was a second one, it came back fine and nobody remembered it
which is the whole asymmetry. bad results travel, boring results do not
💯15
does the reverse happen, one good result clearing a vendor
constantly, and it is the more dangerous error because it makes people spend money
Mokemei got treated as verified off a single 99.4 for a while
and Flourishglobal too. one clean sheet and suddenly everyone is recommending them
one good test does not clear a vendor and one bad test does not condemn one. that is the whole argument and it never sticks
it stuck for me today at least