why does nobody talk about related substances
Right, the certificate of analysis question again, but with numbers this time. I have 9 data points over 14 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…
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 88 weeks to accept.
Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.
the related substances line is where the story is
the related substances line is where the story is
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 87 weeks to accept.
the related substances line is where the story is
Disagree on that part. 98.4% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing