u/cormac_pereira

This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.

Batch number?

Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.

Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.

independent test or vendor COA, which is it

Cosigning. The batch number is load-bearing information.

What is the PBS status?

Strongly agree. AU and NZ differ.

Crossposting this to c/survodutide because the people who need it are not reading this community.

Disagree on that part. 98.7% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.

receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule

Yeah, dual agonism does produce a different appetite profile than GLP-1 alone.

Hard agree. The food noise disappears differently on the two compounds.

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

receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule

the method line is doing real work, not just window dressing

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

Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 85 weeks to accept.

This is the correct framing. The COA structure matters as much as the number.

PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds

positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard

Slight fix: the number was 99.1, not 96.8. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.