A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial — does this still hold?

A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.

Working through the identity arithmetic and I would like it checked.

tirzepatide has a monoisotopic mass close to 4813.5 Da. On an electrospray instrument I would expect to see the multiply charged series rather than the intact singly charged ion, so for the doubly charged species I calculate (4813.5 + 2 x 1.00728) / 2, and for the triply charged the analogous expression.

The observed values in the report sit within a few ppm of those. My question is what that actually establishes, because I have seen people treat a mass match as a purity result and I do not think it is one.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

Colorimetric tests: colour intensity correlates with concentration, but the relationship is non-linear at extremes and the correlation depends on the exact conditions (pH, temperature, timing). Reading the colour visually introduces subjectivity.

Enzyme assays: if you have an enzyme that reacts specifically with your compound, an enzyme-based assay can work. These are sometimes available commercially but are less common than antibody-based tests.

Molecular tests: DNA or RNA tests are not applicable to peptides, which do not contain nucleic acids. Peptide-specific tests rely on protein recognition, not nucleic-acid detection.

Coming back to post #5, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

False positives and false negatives: no test has 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity. A negative result does not guarantee absence; a positive result does not guarantee presence. The predictive value depends on prevalence.