[PSA] PeptideMeter is not what most of this community thinks it is
PeptideMeter is not what most of this community thinks it is, and I say this having got it wrong myself for long enough to be annoyed about it.
The thing that decided it for me was that SGN answered a column-and-gradient question in writing without asking why I wanted to know.
Started buying small deliberately, tested every lot for the first four, then stopped testing every lot because there was nothing to find.
Sent the same compound from BCH and KP to Medutest in the same month. Both came back above the claim on the certificate — mine was 98.8% on a stated 98.0%.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.
the source page log is more useful than the score above it
Disagree that reviews are worthless. They are worthless when they say "fast shipping A+++". A dated one naming a compound and a document is evidence.
Did you ask for the batch-specific certificate, or the generic one?
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.
Kept a spreadsheet of quoted versus actual lead time across 7 orders. The quoted number held.
Same view. A record you can read beats a rating you cannot inspect, every time.
- 1What a batch record should carry: the lot identifier, the date of analysis,…6 comments in this branch · started by u/anders_osei