thats a fill problem
#test-results 2025-10-02
Thursday13 messages4 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- weather_watch — assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem 20:11
- chain_of_custody — i told QYB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 20:16
- blind_submit — unrelated but the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real if you are testing to settle an… 20:25
- assay_not_purity — underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure 20:47
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
update from 4 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
i told QYB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
unrelated but the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
ok so a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
test it again
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
attach the pdf