whats the lot
❤️1📉1
#test-results 2026-04-17
Friday49 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- lean_mass_lex — i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such 17:49
- lean_mass_lex — underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure 18:19
- lean_mass_lex — if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1 18:44
- ms_ms_mira — i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia 21:10
- sulphur_burp — a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached 21:13
Archive lookup: vial_ledger first appears in this channel on 2025-12-11.
certificate said 99 and the independent came back 97.4, is that a problem
[edited]📉1💀9
right so the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
update from 9 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
❤️2
follow up update from 16 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
⚠️5
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
thats a fill problem
transit-times.csv
690 rows · not retained in the public archive
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, your mileage will differ
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, still working it out
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
update on the earlier thing how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
log the boring ones
👀1✅1
right so the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
how much does sample handling on my end affect the number
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
😂10
attach the pdf
99 against a certificate of 99.2 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
ok so a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern, anyway
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
thats within range
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
coming back to this a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
which lab
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
when did you buy it
i told QSC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
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 / 10mgassay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem, take that with a pinch of salt
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
👍9🧪6
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
🧪6📉1👀17
selection bias
Purity check: no report on file for lot A-2601. Nothing logged either way.
thats not great
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
😂7
one data point
coming back after 14 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
test it again
nice result
my sheet has 2 lots from QYB with a spread under a point, which is tight, ymmv
log the lot number
🧪4
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
🧪3✅7🤝17
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
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 / 10mgweigh it first