Verification log updated: QSC — evidence added, status unchanged.
💀1🧊18
#test-results 2025-12-01
Monday54 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- VialBot — Verification log updated: QSC — evidence added, status unchanged. 19:33
- motivation_gone — if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1 19:51
- chlorhex — quick one certificate said 99 and the independent came back 96.8, is that a problem 20:08
- pbs_pip — whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing 20:36
- ari_arrives — how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier 21:59
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
🔥4
do you test every order or sample it
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
😂1🤝3🎉5
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
genuine question do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
coming back after 21 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
lower_frequencyi had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
quick one certificate said 99 and the independent came back 96.8, is that a problem
🙏1⚠️10
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture, we shall see
i told GGPeps about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
when did you buy it
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
log the lot number
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
🙏9✅8💀2
thats not great
💀3❤️6
selection bias
nice result
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier, anyway
right so my sheet has 2 lots from CPC with a spread under a point, which is tight
😂1
whats the lot
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, still working it out
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
[edited]anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
update on the earlier thing quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, from memory
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
log the boring ones
thats within range
for the archive a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
🔥2
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
test it again
posting my PeptideMeter result on lot E-2205, what do people make of it
weights-monthly.csv
111 rows · not retained in the public archive
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
👍3⚠️12
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
99.4 against a certificate of 99.2 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
which lab
one data point
update from 20 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached, take that with a pinch of salt
thats a fill problem
one data point
🎉15🧪3