thats a fill problem
#test-results 2026-06-11
Thursday45 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- apnoea_down_two — log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture 21:31
- VialBot — Verification log updated: TFC — evidence added, status unchanged. 21:34
- tansy_tests — i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice 22:05
- apob_over_ldl — the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real 22:19
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
[edited]log the boring ones
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
✅13💀1🤝2
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
Verification log updated: TFC — evidence added, status unchanged.
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
quick one my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ, ymmv
selection bias
which lab
certificate said 99.2 and the independent came back 98.1, is that a problem
posting my Janoshik result on lot F-1330, what do people make of it
when did you buy it
i told MKM about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
[edited]if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm, ill dig out the number
how do you separate batch variance from supplier variance
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
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 / 10mg98.6 against a certificate of 99.4 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
attach the pdf
does anyone log the negative results, the boring ones
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
thats within range
do the results in this channel skew because people test when suspicious
for the archive post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later, someone check my working
👍8
one data point
| 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 results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
📉2⚠️16
test it again
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier, i could be wrong
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
coming back after 21 months with a follow up result, where do i put it
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
do you test every order or sample it
nice result
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
unrelated but whats the worst result anyone has logged and what happened next
[edited]weigh it first
is a purity-only test worth the money if underfill is the common failure
whats the lot