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

The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the maintainers asked for.

• Compound: tirzepatide
• Independent testing: Janoshik
• Method as reported: reversed-phase HPLC, 214 nm
• Result: 96.9% area
• Certificate figure for the same lot: 99.1%

I am not drawing a conclusion about the supplier from one lot and I would ask that nobody else does either. I am adding a data point to a record.

Picking up post #5: that is the part I would want checked first.

Report the certificate figure alongside the independent one. The comparison is the point and it is the part most often omitted.

Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.

Date the report: when the analysis was done matters. Material can degrade in storage. A report from two years ago is still useful but is not evidence about the current state of the same supplier's stock.

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.