u/mariam_cabrera

Strongly agree. Largest single impurity tells a different story than total purity.

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

I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.

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

below-spec results get logged, not dismissed

testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts

the reship outcome is data worth posting

Yeah, the chromatogram profile matters more than the headline number.

the first time question is not dumb

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 16 weeks to accept.

Removed a chain here.

Disagree on that part. 97.9% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.

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

The the food-noise thing was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.

The thing nobody prepared me for was the quiet. Not the appetite, the quiet. The constant negotiation in my head about food just stopped.

axis labels included, always

A shoulder on the main peak that 9 analysts integrated 37 different ways. Same trace, 99.2 spread.

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

Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.

This is the correct method framing. Column and gradient are load-bearing fields.

Small correction: the trial was 3 weeks, not 15. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

What was the column and what gradient?