u/arne_nyberg

Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.

Small correction: the trial was 3 weeks, not 12. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.

Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2.

Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.

chromatogram or it did not happen

Yeah, WXT took 24 days and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.

The related substances profile is way more interesting than the main peak %. A 98% with 17 peaks is different from a 98% that is one 35% impurity.

The PeptideMeter result being close to my own HPLC is the signal, not the absolute number. Both are right.

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

What was the column and what gradient?

Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.

integration decision on a shoulder changes your number by half a point on its own

price posts need the date — UK pricing moves monthly

co-elution is real and LC-MS is usually not enough to resolve it

positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.

A shoulder on the main peak that 15 analysts integrated 9 different ways. Same trace, 98.9 spread.