[PSA] Janoshik is not what most of this community thinks it is
Janoshik is not what most of this community thinks it is. If you already knew this, the post is not for you and you can scroll on.
FGP BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Janoshik came back 97.7% against a claimed 97.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
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.
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.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
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.
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
date of analysis matters as much as the number
three lots beats three tests on one lot
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.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
Retitled — the original stated a discrepancy the numbers do not show.
Retitled — the original stated a discrepancy the numbers do not show.
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
Retitled — the original stated a discrepancy the numbers do not show.
janoshik_junkie is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity and relative quantity are separate claims and the log tracks both.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
QYB came back 97.4% on a claimed 97.0%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
Same. The WXT results have been sitting in a tight band across lots, which is the useful shape.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
results without method are gossip with decimals
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.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Correcting myself: I quoted net peptide content against somebody else’s area percent. Not a comparison.
- 1Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven…11 comments in this branch · started by u/jonas_cardoso
- 2If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity…8 comments in this branch · started by u/lina_almeida