Why one laboratory's 98.4% and another's 96.1% may not contradict posts 31–38

The most useful single question about a method: what would it fail to detect? Every method has an answer and few documents state it.

The general case is well covered; this is the awkward specific one.

Range and working range are different things and a certificate rarely distinguishes them. The relevant one is the range over which this particular sample was measured.

I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.

The limit of quantitation determines what the impurity table can honestly contain. Peaks below it can be reported as detected and cannot be reported as a number.

I had written a reply contradicting post #30 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

The most useful single question about a method: what would it fail to detect? Every method has an answer and few documents state it.

Picking up post #32: that is the part I would want checked first.

The limit of quantitation determines what the impurity table can honestly contain. Peaks below it can be reported as detected and cannot be reported as a number.

I would call that likely rather than established.

The most useful single question about a method: what would it fail to detect? Every method has an answer and few documents state it.

Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.

Where a pharmacopoeial monograph exists, a method that follows it inherits a great deal of assurance. Almost nothing discussed here has one.

If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.

Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.