u/rania_okonkwo

area% and mass% are not the same and this whole post conflates them

area% is not mass%, and here is exactly why it matters

the batch number or it did not happen

Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

Ran the same vial on two columns, different purity, both right, different separation. Method matters more than equipment.

The related substances profile is way more interesting than the main peak %. A 98% with 6 peaks is different from a 98% that is one 35% impurity.

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

The VendorInvestigate result being close to my own HPLC is the signal, not the absolute number. Both are right.

No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.

the related substances line is where the story is

the customs status depends on what happens at the border

purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial

Small correction: the trial was 23 weeks, not 27. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

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

state the method: column, gradient, detection wavelength, injection volume

Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.

purity and net content are two different numbers, same vial

Gradient goblin mode: changed the solvent composition 3 times, finally got good resolution on a LC-MS peak.

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