unrelated but does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
📈1💀4❤️15
#test-results 2026-04-11
Saturday60 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- willow_waits — unrelated but does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely… 00:02
- bo_bloodwork — my sheet has 9 lots from GGPeps with a spread under a point, which is tight 02:27
- lot_number_lou — update from 23 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both 05:02
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
weights-monthly.csv
556 rows · not retained in the public archive
update on the earlier thing how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
certificate said 99 and the independent came back 98.1, is that a problem
❤️3💀14
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
thats not great
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
✅1💀12
i told CPC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
[edited]👍5🧊5
my sheet has 9 lots from GGPeps with a spread under a point, which is tight
😂6⚠️16
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
✅6❤️1🎉2
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
do you test every order or sample it
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
Reminder for bo_bloodwork: dose day is today. Set 3 days ago.
👍1💀3
98.6 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question, happy to be corrected
🧊1
weigh it first
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
sorry to jump in i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, we shall see
when did you buy it
📉2🔥1🤝7
selection bias
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
👍6❤️4
whats the lot
which lab
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
coming back after 23 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
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 / 10mgunderfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
log the boring ones
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
update from 23 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
👍3🤝9✅14
log the lot number
chromatogram-overlay.png
1240 × 720 · 741 KB · not retained in the public archive
nice result
thats not great
[edited]anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
rotterdam_reconthe results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is…
posting my Janoshik result on lot A-2418, what do people make of it
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
test it again
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
attach the pdf
one data point
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
thats within range
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
💀1😂13
thats a fill problem
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
🔥1
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
🧊8💀11📉7