slightly off topic but my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
#test-results 2025-10-22
Wednesday30 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- triple_ag_tom — right so update from 18 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both 18:25
- reship_rita — is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier 19:19
- lipase_lore — weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure 19:36
- fridge_thermo — a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached 19:59
posting my VendorInvestigate result on lot B-0329, what do people make of it
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
❤️1
ok so quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
right so update from 18 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
🔥1📈9📉14
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
my sheet has 6 lots from BCH with a spread under a point, which is tight, thats one data point
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
whats the lot
fridge-thermometer.png
800 × 800 · 582 KB · not retained in the public archive
thats a fill problem
thats not great
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
📈13❤️13😂1
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
unrelated but i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
test it again
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
📉7🔥4
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
🧊12👍2
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
follow up i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
log the boring ones
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
for the archive i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such