log the lot number
#test-results 2026-04-29
Wednesday47 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- split_shipment — log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture 21:13
- turnaround_tam — anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial 21:36
- evidence_or_not — the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier 22:23
posting my Janoshik result on lot C-4402, what do people make of it
weigh it first
📈1
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
whats the lot
nice result
😂3⚠️1
thats not great
chromatogram-overlay.png
1240 × 720 · 276 KB · not retained in the public archive
thats a fill problem
i told GL Biochem about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real, n of 1 obviously
my result contradicts the supplier certificate, do i tell them
my sheet has 2 lots from SWB with a spread under a point, which is tight
right so i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
Inter-lab diff for lot A-2418: 99.4% vs 99%. Within expected range.
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
💀9🧪1👍8
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind, n of 1 obviously
thats within range
[edited]a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
test it again
🙏3😂17
anyone had a result they think was a lab error rather than a bad vial
🎉10💀17
attach the pdf
do you test every order or sample it
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
selection bias
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
🧪7❤️2👍2
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
log the boring ones
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
🤝1👍17
one data point
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
97.4 against a certificate of 99 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier