[Lab] split one vial across Janoshik and Medutest — 98.1% and 98.9%
split one vial across Janoshik and Medutest — 98.1% and 98.9%. One vial, one service, one member paying, which is the only kind of result this board should treat as evidence.
The numbers the title promised, since a headline without them is worthless: 98.1% and 98.9%. Everything below is context for those.
Independent testing is worth more than a supplied certificate for one structural reason: the chain of custody. A member who buys, ships and pays is testing the same thing you would receive.
Lead time and minimum quantity are the two facts people forget to ask for and then argue about later. Both are answerable in one email before you commit.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
A certificate with a purity figure and no method line is not falsifiable. You cannot reproduce it, you cannot check it, and it tells you nothing about how the number was produced.
ask for the batch record before you ask for a discount
Same view. A record you can read beats a rating you cannot inspect, every time.
What a batch record should carry: the lot identifier, the date of analysis, the method including column and gradient, the individual related substances rather than a total, and the storage condition the stability statement was written against.
Yes, and the reason the wider-market table has no scores is that a score built on two reports would be a lie with a decimal point.
Where a supplier holds regional stock, ask which lines are actually held there rather than drop-shipped. It changes the lead time and it changes the customs question.
How many separate lots is that across? One lot tested twice is one data point.
That is a report count, not a test count. The table lists both and they are very different numbers.
Fixing my own comment above: I said 18 orders and it is 35. The pattern is the same, the count was wrong.
lead time quoted at checkout is the number to hold them to
the wider-market names in the table are there because nobody has enough data on them
Left up. It names an operation, it carries a date and a lot, and it is written as a report rather than an accusation.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs a point or two either way. Two services disagreeing by that much is agreement, not a discrepancy, and treating it otherwise starts pointless arguments.
Cosigning on lot matching. It sounds trivial and it predicts almost everything else about how an operation is run.
a directory entry is a record, not a recommendation
The order I actually check things in, for anyone building a process rather than asking about one supplier.
First, the record: source page, verification log, and how many separate lots have been tested rather than how many tests exist. Second, the paperwork: ask for a batch-specific certificate and see what comes back and how fast. Third, the logistics: quoted lead time, minimum quantity, which lines are held in regional stock. Fourth, buy small and test it yourself.
Nothing in that list is exotic and all of it is answerable before you spend real money. Most of the disappointment posts on this board skipped step two.
Small fix — the figure you quoted is the claimed purity from the certificate, and the independent result was the higher of the two.
Agree. The verification log is the part with the checkable facts in it; the number at the top is just a summary of a lot of averaging.
Correction: that supplier is in the documented twenty with a source page, not in the wider-market table. Different evidence bases entirely.
the interesting column is spread, not maximum
what does the certificate actually carry — that is the whole question
Yes. Spread across lots is the number that tells you about the process. A single high result tells you about a vial.
the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the certificate, every time
registration number, then everything else
Right — GGPeps publishes the method line on the certificate, and once you have seen one that does you notice every one that does not.
Sent the same compound from TFC and Homopeptide to VendorInvestigate in the same month. Both came back above the claim on the certificate — mine was 98.6% on a stated 98.5%.
Agreed on buying small first. The cost of a test is small next to the cost of committing to a supplier you have not checked.
Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.
Kept a spreadsheet of quoted versus actual lead time across 18 orders. The quoted number held.
- 1Yes, and the reason the wider-market table has no scores is that a score…9 comments in this branch · started by u/column_dead_volume
- 2a directory entry is a record, not a recommendation9 comments in this branch · started by u/ghrp_history