8 months in and chromatogram is still the thing I get wrong
I have had 10 orders now and I keep a table, so here is the honest summary rather than a vibe.
Material has been consistent. Communication has not. Shipping has varied by about 32 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.
The independent number came back 98.4% against a claimed 97.2%, which I read as agreement rather than a discrepancy — inter-lab variance on this assay is a point or two either way and treating one lab as ground truth is how people end up in pointless arguments with vendors.
Batch number is in the comments. Ask if you want the method.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
a round-robin on baseline integration would be genuinely useful
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
two labs, two different baselines, two different purity numbers, both honest
a round-robin on baseline integration would be genuinely useful
chromatogram or it did not happen
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
two labs, two different baselines, two different purity numbers, both honest
What was the column and what gradient?
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
co-elution is real and gradient is usually not enough to resolve it
Strongly agree. Largest single impurity tells a different story than total purity.
- 1This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three…5 comments in this branch · started by u/salma_vasquez
- 2a round-robin on baseline integration would be genuinely useful4 comments in this branch · started by u/valeria_cardoso