post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
#test-results 2025-11-05
Wednesday48 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- group_buy_gwen — has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here 12:22
- tare_weight — if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier 13:10
- swab_dry_first — i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice 13:31
- swab_dry_first — i told GL Biochem about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 13:35
whats the lot
✅2👍1📈3
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
update on the earlier thing a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
certificate said 96.8 and the independent came back 99.2, is that a problem
💀1⚠️13
Inter-lab diff for lot KP-0925: 98.6% vs 96.8%. Within expected range.
sorry to jump in weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
slightly off topic but sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
📈8🎉5🙏11
quick one what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
log the lot number
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
thats not great
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
🤝13📉3👍3
sorry to jump in coming back after 1 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
🎉18😂1
log the boring ones
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
i told GL Biochem about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
😂3📈7
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
when did you buy it
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
*Janoshik not the other one
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
my sheet has 5 lots from SSA with a spread under a point, which is tight
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
attach the pdf
99.4 against a certificate of 99.2 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
❤️4👍1🤝4
slightly off topic 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
[edited]how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
✅5📈6❤️4
update from 13 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
nice result
which lab
thats a fill problem, thats one data point
test it again
do you test every order or sample it
weigh it first
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
👀2📈6
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
💀1
when did you buy it
😂8
selection bias