[Discussion] the test results advice in here is 2 years out of date
The title is the argument: the test results advice in here is 2 years out of date. Here is the rest of it.
To save the first four comments: 2 years.
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.
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.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration.
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
date of analysis matters as much as the number
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
Batch number and date of analysis?
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
area percent unless the report says otherwise
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
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.
Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
Careful with the trend claim. Four results over two years is a very sparse series to draw a line through.
Tested three lots over a year rather than three vials from one lot. Cost the same and told me something completely different.
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
- 1I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template…6 comments in this branch · started by u/boots_or_bust