@VTDARKSIM did you presoak it (insert without activating it a day ahead of time)? It looks like components of the adhesive used on the G7 interfere and take about a day to disappear (hence the @^#%%^$#@ readings at the beginning of a session).
@cortig
G7 activates when it leaves inserter.
So far I usually heard that the noise is due to the shock to the tissues at just having been stabbed.
@VTDARKSIM
@viq @VTDARKSIM It does (and my phrasing was off indeed), but until you pair it, the clock doesn't start running as far as I can tell. At least, we always still got our 10 days from the moment we paired, not the moment we insert.
@cortig
Huh, interesting, haven't heard that before, I may give it a try since I have a bunch of sensors due to warranty returns...
@VTDARKSIM
@cortig
(One+, but AFAIK the main difference is lack of prediction, which I don't care about since I get that from xdrip and AndroidAPS)
@VTDARKSIM
@cortig
I inserted my ONE+ a few hours ago, connected to it for the first time a couple minutes ago, and xdrip shows remaining life as 10.3 days instead of the usual 10.5
@VTDARKSIM
@viq @VTDARKSIM we inserted a g7 two days ago but activated it only yesterday and it says 9 days left (so basing it on activation time). Not sure why the One+ seems to count differently.
@cortig
AFAIK you have 10 days 12 hours of life, so depending how long ago exactly did you start it, application could round it to 9 when it was counting all this time 🤷
@VTDARKSIM
@viq @VTDARKSIM in my experience even with presoaking 1 full day we still had the 10 days plus 12h (although a LOT of CGM fail before the 10 days so it’s hard to be precise)
@viq @VTDARKSIM The activation is triggered by the magnets interactions between the ones in the sensor and the one in the launcher. Sometimes it fails (and you can't pair the G7) and some folks have had success by taking the magnet out of the launcher, and tapping it on the sensor.
@cortig @viq had to do that for the first time a few weeks ago
@viq @cortig probably. Also it claims no calibration necessary but it does need to calibrate itself, I imagine.
@cortig lol what?! Not saying that’s not true but it’s insane if it is and it’s gone to production that way.

@VTDARKSIM it got to production that way, and they got slapped on the wrist by the FDA for changing the formulation of the adhesive (coating) without approval and retesting. Some people claim they even did it despite internal memos warning that the new formulation interfered with readings (I don't have a good source for that).

https://www.medtechdive.com/news/dexcom-warning-letter-cgm-coating-change/743597/

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/dexcom-inc-700835-03042025

Dexcom’s FDA warning letter reveals unauthorized changes to sensors

Dexcom made a significant design change to a component used in its sensors and did not adequately validate the change, according to the warning letter.

MedTech Dive
@cortig hadn’t heard that, but this is my surprised face 😐