the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
#test-results 2025-12-15
Monday14 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- pia_plateaus — update from 2 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both 21:14
- LC_MS_Lena — i told KP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 22:24
- rotterdam_recon — weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure, ymmv 23:21
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
update from 2 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
lot bought purity assay/label
A-2418 2025-03 99.1% 9.6 / 10mg
A-2601 2025-08 98.7% 9.8 / 10mg
B-0114 2026-01 99.3% 9.4 / 10mg
B-0329 2026-04 98.9% 9.9 / 10mgquick one 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, ymmv
[edited]do you test every order or sample it
Digest for the week of 2025-10-27 has been published.
📈1
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by, still working it out
i told KP about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
🎉3🙏5🤝13
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
when did you buy it
my sheet has 2 lots from GGPeps with a spread under a point, which is tight
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure, ymmv
🧊6😂12🧪6