A certificate with no method stated: what can you conclude?

A certificate with no method stated: what can you conclude? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.

I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it anywhere.

A Janoshik report on a tirzepatide lot gives 98.1% purity. The supplier certificate for the same lot states 98.8%. Both documents name a reversed-phase method; neither states the same gradient.

My question is not "who is right". It is: given that those two figures were produced by different methods, what is the largest difference I should expect from method alone, and at what point does a gap stop being explainable that way?

the opening post answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Purity and content are different measurements: purity tells you what proportion of the detected material is the intended species. Content tells you how much of the intended species is present in the container. A lyophilised vial can be 99% pure and contain considerably less than the label claims because the remainder is water, counter-ion and excipient.

A certificate of analysis is a statement by its issuer that a defined test was performed on a defined lot and produced a defined result. That is all it is, and it is not nothing. What makes it usable: lot identifier matching the container, test date, method identification specific enough to reproduce, the actual result as a number, and the acceptance criterion stated separately from the result.

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

What fields matter on a certificate: lot number matching the vial, test date, the analytical method stated specifically, the measured result as a number, and the acceptance limit stated separately. A certificate missing any of these is weaker.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Endotoxin testing is separate: a certificate of purity says nothing about endotoxin. A chemically pure preparation can carry a clinically significant endotoxin load. If endotoxin matters, it needs to be tested and reported.

This follows post #5 rather than contradicting it.

Sterility testing is separate: chromatographic purity, mass spectrometry, and endotoxin testing all say nothing about whether a solution is sterile. If sterility matters, it needs to be tested and reported.

Reading old certificates: if a certificate is dated years ago, the lot it describes might be old. That is not automatically a problem but it is worth noting. Fresh testing on the current lot is stronger than old testing on an older lot.

When a document puts the specification in the result column, it has told you the release criterion, not the measurement. Those are different claims and the second is weaker.

Water content (residual moisture) matters: lyophilised peptide is not dry. A few percent water is normal. The difference between a TFA salt and an acetate salt can be several percent. Content calculations need the water content to be accurate.

Counter-ion form is crucial: peptides are isolated as salts, most often trifluoroacetate from reversed-phase purification or acetate after salt exchange. The counter-ion is part of the mass in the vial and is not part of the peptide. Two vials of the same purity, one as TFA and one as acetate, contain different amounts of peptide per milligram.

This follows post #10 rather than contradicting it.

Amino acid analysis gives content: it hydrolyses the peptide and quantifies the residues. It measures the peptide content independent of chromatographic purity. Very few supplier certificates report it.

I read post #12 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

When a document puts the specification in the result column, it has told you the release criterion, not the measurement. Those are different claims and the second is weaker.