test it again
#test-results 2025-11-03
Monday39 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- appetite_back — a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached update from 2 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better,… 16:28
- rae_labels — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 17:21
- split_dose_sam — i told WWB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 17:38
- split_the_cost — unrelated but update from 7 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both 18:04
- split_the_cost — how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance 18:05
certificate said 99 and the independent came back 97.4, is that a problem
nice result
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally, still working it out
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
✅1🧊1👍2
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
whats the lot
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
update from 2 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
👍5
selection bias
thats not great
🙏2🎉7
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
👀5
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
🧊5🙏3❤️14
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier, thats one data point
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, ill dig out the number
Digest for the week of 2024-12-13 has been published.
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1, i have it written down somewhere
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
my sheet has 2 lots from QSC with a spread under a point, which is tight
split_dose_sami test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia, ill dig out…
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
i told WWB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
log the lot number
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
*that should say weekly
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
attach the pdf
unrelated but update from 7 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
📈5
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
| 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 |
weigh it first