[Meta] the certificate of analysis rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud.
The advice on related substances in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with the same confidence.
I have listed what I think the current consensus is below. Correct me — that is the point of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
the related substances line is where the story is
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
Mechanistically the bit that matters is water content. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
[deleted]
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
Disagree on that part. 97.9% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.
This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.
purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial
redact your own name, not the vendor's batch details
- 1Mechanistically the bit that matters is water content. It explains most of…5 comments in this branch · started by u/tidy_vialdrawer_pls
- 2PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds5 comments in this branch · started by u/tove_ogunleye