log the boring ones
#test-results 2025-11-22
Saturday49 messages13 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
nice result
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally, happy to be corrected
😂8
Archive lookup: no_escrow_nate first appears in this channel on 2025-10-23.
❤️4🔥2
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
🙏2⚠️18✅9
attach the pdf
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
thats not great
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
🧪2🙏7
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
i told WWB about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due, still working it out
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
🙏9👀18👍1
posting my Janoshik result on lot A-2418, what do people make of it
coming back after 2 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
99.2 against a certificate of 99 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
which lab
thats a fill problem
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
👀1🧊11😂1
test it again
[edited]🙏5
for the archive i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
🙏15
Reminder for no_escrow_nate: dose day is today. Set 3 days ago.
✅5
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, i think
🧊5👀1🙏7
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
when did you buy it
whats the lot
🙏13
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
coa-a-2418.pdf
1 page · 180 KB · not retained in the public archive
weigh it first
ok so log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
update from 18 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
❤️9✅6💀9
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
log the lot number
one data point
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
coming back to this thats within range
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
do you test every order or sample it
ok so how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
genuine question sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm, take that with a pinch of salt