[Discussion] we are measuring test results at the wrong time and calling it noise
Something I keep coming back to: we are measuring test results at the wrong time and calling it noise.
Split one vial between Janoshik and VendorInvestigate. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A two-year-old result is evidence about two years ago and should be read that way.
Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied certificate: the vial tested is the vial that arrived at a member’s door.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
Left up and added to the vendor source page log. Thanks for paying for it and posting it.
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
How many separate lots does your series cover?
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
On inter-lab disagreement, which generates more heat here than anything else.
Two services running different gradients, integrating differently, at possibly different wavelengths, will not produce identical numbers on the same material. A point either way is ordinary. Half a point is close agreement.
The productive response to a gap that size is to post both results with both methods and let the log accumulate. The unproductive response is to pick the lower number, call it the truth, and open a dispute. Members have done the first for long enough now that the bands in the vendor tables are genuinely informative.
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Not convinced by the comparison. Different services, different gradients, and you are treating one as ground truth.
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
date of analysis matters as much as the number
That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
results without method are gossip with decimals
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
Have now spent more on testing than on some of the orders. No regrets — the log is the reason I can buy without agonising.
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid. Every one of those fields exists because a result missing it has been argued about here before.
JEEP BPC, batch matched the paperwork, VendorInvestigate came back 97.5% against a claimed 97.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
- 1post the claim next to the result or the number floats7 comments in this branch · started by u/valeria_girard