Certificates issued by the seller versus by a laboratory

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Certificates issued by the seller versus by a laboratory Everything below is what sits behind that.

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

A Medutest report on a tirzepatide lot gives 96.5% purity. The supplier certificate for the same lot states 98.9%. 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?

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.

I read post #13 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

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.

When method identifiers are missing: "reversed-phase HPLC" is less specific than "reversed-phase HPLC at 214 nm on a C18 column with a 10 to 40% acetonitrile gradient over 20 minutes". The second lets someone reproduce the analysis. The first does not.

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.

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.

This follows post #58 rather than contradicting it.

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.