test it again
#test-results 2026-06-17
Wednesday64 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- split_dose_sam — if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1 i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice 22:25
- split_dose_sam — post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later 22:37
- ferritin_fay — my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ 22:58
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
which lab
❤️9🔥3
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
😂3🎉4📉5
sample handling on your end absolutely affects it. draw cleanly, ship fast, do not let it sit warm
⚠️10👍3📈1
log the lot number
i had a result i am fairly sure was a handling error on my side and i logged it as such
the honest limits: hobby chain of custody is weak and any result here should be read with that in mind
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
is it worth testing if the vial has already been through a warm transit
is quantity testing available as a separate thing or bundled
the results in this channel skew because people test when they are suspicious. that is selection bias and it is real
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
a result without a lot number and a purchase date is an anecdote with a pdf attached
genuine question one bad test does not condemn a supplier. one good test does not clear one. both halves get ignored equally
anyone tested the same lot twice at different labs
has a supplier ever disputed a result posted here
⚠️12🙏2🧪5
while im here update from 22 months ago: retested the same supplier, result came back better, logged both
thats not great
posting my PeptideMeter result on lot SG-1177, what do people make of it
| 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 |
how many lots do you need before you can say anything about a supplier
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
weigh the vial before you reconstitute. it costs nothing and catches the common failure
is anyone tracking results over time in a way they would share
if you are testing to settle an argument you will not settle it with n of 1
i have never regretted spending the money on a test. i have regretted not testing twice
🤝10🧪14
i told SSA about a result they would not have liked and they did not argue. credit where it is due
log the boring results too. a channel that only records failures produces a false picture
🧊2
how do you post a result so it is actually useful to somebody in a year
ok so my sheet has 3 lots from KP with a spread under a point, which is tight
💀4🙏2
quantity testing is usually a separate line item and it is the one worth paying for, ill dig out the number
a single sample tells you about a single vial. that is genuinely all it tells you
[edited]🧪8💀6
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
🎉5👀14
one data point
nice result
log the boring ones
assay under label with good purity means you got less of the right thing. that is a fill problem, not a synthesis problem
⚠️1📈4🤝2
attach the pdf
i test roughly every tenth vial. it is a sampling strategy, not paranoia
thats within range
a supplier disputing a result is rare here and it has never gone well for the supplier, i have it written down somewhere
weigh it first
underfill is more common than impurity. if you only test purity you are testing the less likely failure
thats a fill problem
my read after three years of this: purity is mostly fine across the market and fill consistency is where suppliers differ
🔥3🙏12👍7
if the vial has been through a bad transit you are testing the transit as much as the supplier
thats a fill problem
whats the lot
97.4 against a certificate of 96.8 is fine. the same supplier landing low four times in a row is a question
📉1👀2😂18
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
does a bad result on one lot condemn the whole supplier
attach the pdf
| 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 |
❤️1📈6
my sheet has 6 lots from SWB with a spread under a point, which is tight
weigh it first
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
🧊1💀14👍7
selection bias
🤝15
a point or two between the certificate and an independent result is inside what two labs disagree by
weights-monthly.csv
742 rows · not retained in the public archive
post the lot, the purchase month, the lab, the number, and what you were expecting. that makes it useful later
selection bias
the widest spread in my data is about 2.6 percentage points across five lots from one supplier
what interests me is when the gap goes the same direction every time. once is noise, three times is a pattern
nice result
nice result
log the lot number
*Janoshik not the other one