[Question] how do you actually verify batch
how do you actually verify batch. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post.
HJ BPC, batch matched the paperwork, PeptideMeter came back 98.2% against a claimed 97.5%. 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.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
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.
What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
A single figure with no batch identifier is about a vial nobody can locate. Add the batch and it becomes about a lot. Add the claimed figure from the certificate and it becomes a comparison. Add the service and the date and it becomes reproducible. Say that you paid for it yourself and it becomes independent.
Five extra fields, thirty seconds of typing, and the difference between a comment and a row in the log that will still be useful in three years.
results without method are gossip with decimals
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
Nudging rather than removing: the standard template is in the sidebar and this post is missing the batch field.
Have now spent more on testing than on some of the orders. No regrets — the log is the reason I can buy without agonising.
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.
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
Split one vial between Medutest and Janoshik. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
- 1results without method are gossip with decimals6 comments in this branch · started by u/piotr_nascimento