AssayIndex
State of the index · 2025-Q1

The provenance effect: 0.31 pp

With provenance recorded on every record, the index can measure whether supplier-supplied samples read better than material bought independently. They do.

702 records106 batchesmedian 99.12 %531 flagged

Provenance became a required field in 2024-Q4. By 2025-Q1 the index held enough lots assayed from both a supplier-supplied sample and an independently purchased vial to measure the difference.

The result

Across all paired lots, the supplier-supplied result reads a mean 0.31 pp higher than the independently purchased vial, with a 95 % confidence interval of 0.19 to 0.43 pp. The effect is small on average, statistically clear, and highly variable between individual lots.

Provenance classShare of indexMedian purity, matched compoundsWeight applied
Buyer-sourcedabout 85 %referenceFull — used in all sensitivity analyses
Supplier-suppliedabout 12 %+0.31 ppPublished; excluded from buyer-sourced subsets
Laboratory-retainedabout 3 %not significantly differentPublished with storage duration stated

Three mechanisms, none of them separable

  • The sample may be from a different fill than retail stock. Several submitters have reported physically different vials, caps or fill volumes for samples versus retail purchases.
  • The sample may be from a hand-picked lot.
  • The retail vial may have degraded in distribution in a way the sample did not — in which case the finding is about the supply chain rather than about anyone's honesty.

The index cannot distinguish between these and does not claim to. What it does is record provenance on every record, report each supplier's buyer-sourced subset separately from its total, and flag the individual lots where the gap exceeds 0.8 pp under rule AX-R10.

96.497.097.798.398.999.6100.2TFCTFC: Q1 98.39, median 99.11, Q3 99.60, n=84n=84WWBWWB: Q1 99.08, median 99.34, Q3 99.85, n=83n=83HomopeptideHomopeptide: Q1 99.23, median 99.58, Q3 99.76, n=67n=67QSCQSC: Q1 99.28, median 99.57, Q3 99.84, n=59n=59HJHJ: Q1 98.15, median 98.97, Q3 99.41, n=57n=57SGNSGN: Q1 97.76, median 98.12, Q3 98.41, n=40n=40KPKP: Q1 98.15, median 98.69, Q3 99.05, n=40n=40SSASSA: Q1 98.10, median 98.65, Q3 99.11, n=34n=34WXTWXT: Q1 98.22, median 98.72, Q3 99.50, n=34n=34GGPepsGGPeps: Q1 98.19, median 98.47, Q3 98.74, n=29outlier 99.80n=29SWBSWB: Q1 98.78, median 99.17, Q3 99.63, n=27outlier 97.50n=27ERPERP: Q1 98.76, median 99.12, Q3 99.68, n=27n=27 Purity (% area)
Figure. Purity by supplier for records submitted in 2025-Q1, top 12 by coverage. Vertical line is the index-wide median. Coverage in a single quarter is thin for most suppliers and the boxes are correspondingly unstable — this figure is a description of one quarter's submissions, not of the suppliers.

Supplier-supplied fractions

The fraction varies substantially between suppliers, from under 10 % to over 30 %. Suppliers above 25 % now carry a note on their scorecard, because at that share the aggregate is materially affected by the effect measured above. The laboratory that purchases anonymously as a matter of policy has a buyer-sourced fraction of 94 % and its record set is the cleanest available subset for anyone wanting to exclude the effect entirely.

Appendix

Quarter in numbers

Records submitted 702 n=702
Batches 106 n=106
Median purity 99.12% n=683
IQR 1.16pp n=683
Suppliers represented 19 n=702
Compounds represented 36 n=702
Records flagged 531 n=702
Buyer-sourced share 15.4% n=702

Every record submitted in 2025-Q1 →