log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
#test-results 2026-03-03
Tuesday24 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- swirl_not_shake — is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure 08:34
- blank_run — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 08:47
- LC_MS_Lena — my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture 10:50
- ring_size_down — slightly off topic but the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real 10:52
- ring_size_down — assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem 12:49
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
🧊16
thats not great
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
coming back to this certificate said 98.6 and the independent came back 96.8, is that a problem
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
whats the lot
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
when did you buy it
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure, ymmv
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
*Janoshik not the other one
slightly off topic but the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
🧊5👍2🧪8
99 against a certificate of 97.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
posting my Medutest result on lot A-2601, what do people make of it
one data point
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such, ill dig out the number
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
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