do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
#test-results 2026-05-22
Friday29 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ms_ms_mira — a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the… 20:40
- ms_ms_mira — for the archive a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you, i have it written down somewhere 21:04
- factory_direct_fi — i told TFC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due 21:26
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
whats the lot
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1, still working it out
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
whats the underfill rate people are actually seeing
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier
whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
log the lot number
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
for the archive a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you, i have it written down somewhere
👍10
certificate said 99.4 and the independent came back 98.6, is that a problem
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
i told TFC about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
which lab
🔥12
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
[redacted at member request] · archive policy
nice result
genuine question weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure, still working it out
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
update from 22 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
slightly off topic but what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern, from memory
my vial assayed under label but the purity was fine, which matters more
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
ok so sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm, n of 1 obviously
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such, for what its worth
unrelated but log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier