this COA has no batch number and no date. what am i even looking at
FGP cagrilintide. The document has a compound name, a purity figure, a logo, and a signature image. No batch number. No date of analysis. No method beyond the word HPLC. Is this a COA with fields missing or is it something else wearing a COA's clothes?
the tell is "≥98%" versus "98.4%". a specification is a promise about a product line. a result is a measurement on a run. if the number has no decimal and a greater-than sign, it is the former.
mine says 98.0% with a decimal, no greater-than. so possibly a real measurement with the identifying fields stripped?
plausibly, and that is the most common case. somebody rebuilt the document for presentation and dropped the boring fields. ask for the original.
asked. edit next day: they sent the full document within about six hours, batch FGP-2606, dated, with a method line that names the column and the gradient. so: fields were stripped for presentation, original is fine.
And that is the best possible outcome of this thread. Logging it on the source page — asked for batch-specific documentation, supplied in hours.
FGP being the reason there is any independent cagri data at all buys them a bit of goodwill from me, but the goodwill is not why the document is fine — the document is fine because they sent it.