help me understand below spec, I have read the wiki twice
Question in the title, detail here: help me understand below spec, I have read the wiki twice.
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.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
area percent unless the report says otherwise
What was the claim on the certificate you are comparing against?
Disagree that this is a discrepancy. 98.3% against a claimed 97.5% is inside ordinary inter-lab variance in either direction.
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
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.
MKM BPC, batch matched the paperwork, VendorInvestigate came back 97.9% against a claimed 97.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
That reading assumes area percent and net peptide content are the same number. They are not, and the report says which it is.
Yes — date of analysis, because a result from two years ago describes a different manufacturing month.
results without method are gossip with decimals
Merged with the other thread on the same batch so the results sit together.
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
three lots beats three tests on one lot
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
Agreed — the template exists because a result without the batch and the claim is unanchored.
Disagreeing with this line: that gap is ordinary variance, not a contradiction between the lab and the certificate.
post the claim next to the result or the number floats
split a vial across two services once and you will never argue about ground truth again
Same. The BCH results have been sitting in a tight band across lots, which is the useful shape.
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.
- 1three lots beats three tests on one lot7 comments in this branch · started by u/ismael_nwosu
- 2On inter-lab disagreement, which generates more heat here than anything…6 comments in this branch · started by u/crp_curious