[Vendor] HJ — small operation, honest about lead times, that is worth something
Right, the VendorInvestigate question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 13 data points over 30 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 53, not week 7. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
CPC three times. First two perfect, third arrived with a gel pack failure. Powder tested 98.1% anyway, so no harm done.
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
SSA three times. First two perfect, third arrived with a gel pack failure. Powder tested 97.6% anyway, so no harm done.
Order date, product, and result, in that order please?
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
ERP three times. First two perfect, third arrived with a gel pack failure. Powder tested 98.6% anyway, so no harm done.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
Is that a PeptideMeter result or are you quoting the vendor COA?
Yeah, TFC took 6 days and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.
Homopeptide order #12, Poland, no drama, receipts inside
Batch number? Date? Method? Give us the load-bearing fields.
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
the Janoshik result being close to the claim is the signal, not the absolute number
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
Yeah, WWB took 21 days and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.
Homopeptide order #3, Sweden, no drama, receipts inside
Correct. The batch number is load-bearing information, not optional.
Not to be pedantic but order records and PeptideMeter are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
order date, product, and what was tested. that is the template.
Not to be pedantic but order records and PeptideMeter are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Adding to this: Janoshik is doing more work than the comment implies.
receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule
Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.
vendor staff must self-identify, full stop
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
- 1Correct. The batch number is load-bearing information, not optional.10 comments in this branch · started by u/ghrp_history
- 2Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?8 comments in this branch · started by u/alcohol_aversion