[Discussion] the gradient advice in here is 3 years out of date

the gradient advice in here is 3 years out of date. Not a hot take, just something I have not seen said plainly here.

3 years. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.

The system suitability argument, since it comes up whenever somebody posts a number without one.

Before the sample result means anything, the instrument has to be shown to be fit that day: replicate injections with an acceptable RSD on area, a tailing factor inside limits, adequate plate count, and a resolution check between the pair you care about.

None of that is exotic and all of it is routine in a laboratory that reports for a living. Its absence does not mean a number is wrong; it means the number is unanchored, and unanchored numbers should not be quoted to two decimal places on this board.

Reading a trace posted here, in the order I actually look at things.

Axes first — if the wavelength and the time axis are not labelled, I stop. Then the baseline: where has it been drawn, and does the drawing absorb anything. Then peak shape: fronting, tailing, a shoulder that never resolves. Then the blank, if one was run, for carryover.

Only after all of that do I look at the percentage, and by then I usually know how much weight it deserves. The number is the last thing on the page and the first thing everybody argues about, which is exactly backwards.

Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.