[Janoshik] WWB sema 10mg — 98.6%, batch and method inside
Title says it — WWB sema 10mg — 98.6%, batch and method inside — so here is the boring supporting detail that makes it worth anything.
10mg and 98.6%. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
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.
How to build a series that means something, if you are going to spend money on testing anyway.
Three tests on one lot tells you about your measurement. Three tests on three lots, spread over a year, tells you about a process. The second is the one worth paying for and it costs the same.
Buy small, keep the batch numbers, send one vial per lot, and post each one with the claim next to it. After four or five you have something no individual review can give you: a band, a direction and a date range. That is what the source pages are made of.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
- WWWWB source pageWuhan Wansheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd. · Wuhan · 97% here, rank 2 · shop at wuhanwanshengbio.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
[deleted]
Area percent or net peptide content?
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Same. The GGPeps results have been sitting in a tight band across lots, which is the useful shape.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
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.
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.
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.
area percent unless the report says otherwise
area percent unless the report says otherwise
medutest_mel is right that the band matters more than the peak. Consistency across lots is the finding.
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
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.
- 1Same. The GGPeps results have been sitting in a tight band across lots,…6 comments in this branch · started by u/coa_janitor