reading below spec threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
reading below spec threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. Not a hot take, just something I have not seen said plainly here.
CPC BPC, batch matched the paperwork, PeptideMeter came back 98.7% against a claimed 98.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
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.
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.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
Not convinced by the comparison. Different services, different gradients, and you are treating one as ground truth.
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one.
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Which service, and did you pay for it yourself?
Batch number and date of analysis?
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight the whole way. That consistency is the actual finding.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
Area percent or net peptide content?
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
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.
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
QST came back 99.0% on a claimed 98.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
Left up and added to the vendor source page log. Thanks for paying for it and posting it.
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
Left up and added to the vendor source page log.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
date of analysis matters as much as the number
- 1Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight…7 comments in this branch · started by u/lift_heavy_things
- 2Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most…6 comments in this branch · started by u/refund_ledger