The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there — what changed since posts 31–36

The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.

It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.

Post #30 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.

Confirming post #32 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Structured report format: compound, lot, independent testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and it becomes a disputed record when asked and not explained.

The maintainers will ask for missing fields rather than rejecting a report. Filling them in afterwards is normal and nobody minds.

Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.

The arithmetic in post #32 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.

Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.