sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
⚠️3🙏1
#test-results 2025-10-07
Tuesday22 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- split_dose_sam — a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier 21:32
- split_dose_sam — the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier 21:33
- cold_pack_carla — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 22:02
genuine question a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
test it again
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
| 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 |
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
🤝1🎉13✅9
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
follow up one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
quick one my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
📉5
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
medutest-report-b-0114.pdf
3 pages · 141 KB · not retained in the public archive
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
thats not great
| 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 |
one data point
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
update from 23 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
thats a fill problem
👀1
my sheet has 6 lots from SGN with a spread under a point, which is tight