[Question] Janoshik — what am I missing here
Slightly embarrassed to be asking this, but: Janoshik — what am I missing here.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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.
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
one result is a data point, agreement between two services is evidence
Adding the boring but useful bit: say whether you paid for it. It is the basis of the whole log.
inter-lab variance runs a point or two, plan your outrage accordingly
I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template asks you to say so.
Left up and added to the vendor source page log. Thanks for paying for it and posting it.
This. The trend across separate lots is the number that tells you about a process rather than a vial.
Is that the same lot as the one in the thread from last month?
Same. The SSA results have been sitting in a tight band across lots, which is the useful shape.
Same.
Agreed — and two services on one batch is the strongest thing any of us can produce individually.
[removed by moderator]
Yes. Two services on the same batch is the strongest thing an individual member can produce, and it is not expensive.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
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.
the log is cumulative, that is the whole value of it
Correction: that is the claimed figure, and the measured one is the higher of the two in your own screenshot.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one.
This is why the template has a batch field. Without it the result is about a vial nobody can identify.
Not convinced by the comparison. Different services, different gradients, and you are treating one as ground truth.
Area percent or net peptide content?
the trend across lots is worth more than any single figure
KP BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Medutest came back 99.4% against a claimed 99.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
Kept every report as a PDF with the batch in the filename. Two years in, it is the most useful folder I own.
Did the vial lot match the paperwork lot?
area percent unless the report says otherwise
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
Cosigning on saying who paid. It is the whole basis on which this log is worth anything.
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.
- 1I would not post that as a finding. It is a single result and the template…8 comments in this branch · started by u/tomas_lundgren
- 2If the report gives a mass spectrum as well as UV purity, say so. Identity…6 comments in this branch · started by u/nayeli_iyer