#test-results 2026-01-20

Tuesday18 messages4 participantstimes are UTC

Highlights from this day

otto_swirls — assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem 21:43
otto_swirls — sorry to jump in i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice, take that with a pinch of salt 21:44
salt_bridge — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, still working it out 21:45
otto_swirls — slightly off topic but log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture 21:52

log the lot number

which lab

✅1

thats a fill problem

update from 13 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both

thats not great

how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier

how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year

one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally

test it again

if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1

selection bias

[edited]

assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem

sorry to jump in i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice, take that with a pinch of salt

my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, still working it out

i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia

nice result

🤝6👍12✅6

98.1 against a certificate of 99.2 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question

slightly off topic but log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture