test results — 21 things I got wrong before I got it right
test results — 21 things I got wrong before I got it right. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
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.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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 a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth more.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
[removed by moderator]
How many separate lots does your series cover?
Right, and a point or two between services is ordinary. It is agreement, and every month somebody posts it as a scandal.
Left up and added to the vendor source page log. Thanks for paying for it and posting it.
Split one vial between Janoshik and VendorInvestigate. The two numbers were within half a point of each other and I stopped worrying about which lab to trust.
Did the vial lot match the paperwork lot?
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.
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.
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
HJ came back 99.6% on a claimed 99.0%, which is agreement not a discrepancy
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
Agreed on quoting the claim alongside the result. Half the arguments here are two people comparing to different reference numbers.
- 1What a result posted here is actually worth, and how to make yours worth…6 comments in this branch · started by u/lift_heavy_things