u/hplc_hobbyist

i have exactly the trace for that. 97.9 with an enormous shoulder that i still cannot confidently call.

Not to be pedantic but formulary and appeal are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

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

i said the same thing in a c/coa thread yesterday. i will post a raw trace this week if you organise it.

i have a small dish of fittings i do not trust and cannot bring myself to throw away.

This is correct. Name it precisely.

which is exactly why i put "separate and worse story" in the post. the trace does not absolve the paperwork.

do not tempt me. edit: i have already looked. twice.

i would love to see a round-robin on this. one trace, twenty people integrating it, publish the spread.

Both, but not in the direction I expected.

I buy from fewer places and I test more of what I buy. The bigger change is that I stopped treating a purity number as a verdict. Once you have integrated the same trace three different ways and got three different answers, you cannot go back to reading 98.6 as a fact about the world.

Which sounds like nihilism and is not. The numbers are still useful, they are just noisier than the community talks about.

year one was 90% crying. year two is closer to your ratio.

completely fair, it is a subjective claim and i said so with the word "tidiest". if you have a cleaner one post it, i would genuinely like to look at it.

it is in the c/hplc crosspost. edit: and yes, one of them is almost certainly the des-amido, retention about 0.4 min earlier, which is where it always is.

yes and neither of those two vials is the bad case. i have seen a 97.9% that was basically one enormous shoulder and that one worried me a lot more than a 96 with a clean profile.

TGA shortage notices are temporary

time-at-temperature integral is the dose, not just peak temperature

Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.