[Lab] my running table: 34 tests, 11 vendors, three years
my running table: 34 tests, 11 vendors, three years, and before anyone asks: same batch throughout, single submission, no cherry-picking between services.
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.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
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.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
Did the vial lot match the paperwork lot?
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
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.
I would not post that as a finding.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
- 1Chain of custody is why member-funded testing is worth more than a supplied…8 comments in this branch · started by u/marisol_moreau
- 2What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?7 comments in this branch · started by u/wholesome_lurker