reading test results threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
The title is the argument: reading test results threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. Here is the rest of it.
Have now spent more on testing than on some of the orders. No regrets — the log is the reason I can buy without agonising.
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
Tested three lots over a year rather than three vials from one lot. Cost the same and told me something completely different.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
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.
[deleted]
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
Area percent or net peptide content?
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
QST came back 99.2% on a claimed 98.5%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
Disagree that this is a discrepancy. 99.6% against a claimed 99.0% is inside ordinary inter-lab variance in either direction.
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
vendor, compound, batch, service, result — that is the template
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
Correcting myself: I quoted net peptide content against somebody else’s area percent. Not a comparison.
Retitled — the original stated a discrepancy the numbers do not show.
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.
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
three lots beats three tests on one lot
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
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.
- 1The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who…9 comments in this branch · started by u/mateusz_mensah
- 2Date of analysis anchors the result to a manufacturing period. A…7 comments in this branch · started by u/noor_vermeulen