if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
#test-results 2026-03-02
Monday29 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- oli_orals — i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such, i think 15:35
- gip_glp_gil — 96.8 against a certificate of 98.1 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question 17:13
- gip_glp_gil — ok so post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later 17:38
- gip_glp_gil — i told HJ about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 18:05
- gip_glp_gil — unrelated but my sheet has 8 lots from Homopeptide with a spread under a point, which is tight 18:06
whats the lot
one data point
selection bias
posting my Janoshik result on lot E-2205, what do people make of it
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such, i think
✅2😂1
log the boring ones
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice, n of 1 obviously
for the archive the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
log the lot number
attach the pdf
96.8 against a certificate of 98.1 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
🤝15👍15✅1
ok so post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
i told HJ about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
unrelated but my sheet has 8 lots from Homopeptide with a spread under a point, which is tight
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
test it again
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached, i think
thats not great
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
follow up anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
do you test every order or sample it
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by