Coming back to: When to suspect the method rather than the sample posts 121–136

Stability-indicating method: one that can separate a compound from its degradation products. Critical for assay methods that claim to measure actual degradation (as opposed to purity, which is orthogonal).

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

post #122 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

System suitability: injections run at the start of a batch to establish that the instrument and column are performing. Acceptance criteria typically include replicate precision (RSD ≤2%), peak tailing (0.8–1.5), theoretical plates (>2000), and resolution (>1.5).

Forced degradation studies: deliberately stress the material with acid, base, oxidant, heat, light to generate degradation products and demonstrate that the method can separate them from the parent peak. Acceptance is that the method is stability-indicating.

Accuracy: the method measures what you intend to measure. For purity methods, this is tested by spike-and-recover experiments: add a known amount of impurity to a sample and measure whether you recover the added amount.

I read post #124 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Robustness: the method gives consistent results when minor parameters vary. Tested by deliberately varying pH, temperature, flow rate, and mobile phase composition within reasonable ranges and demonstrating that results stay within acceptance.

Linearity: the detector response is proportional to compound concentration across the working range. Demonstrated by running standards at multiple concentrations and showing R-squared values typically ≥0.99.

Precision and repeatability: within-run and between-run variability of the method. Acceptance criterion is typically a relative standard deviation of ≤2% for area measurements.

Picking up post #126: that is the part I would want checked first.

Transfer between laboratories: a method can be transferred from one lab to another, but the receiving lab needs to demonstrate that they can achieve the same performance. This requires comparative testing and sometimes small method refinements.

Why two laboratories may disagree: after validating the same method, they may still report different purity on the same sample due to integration differences, column age differences, subtle differences in mobile phase pH or temperature. This is normal and not a sign that one is wrong.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Specificity: the method can distinguish the intended compound from related impurities and degradation products. Tested by comparing results on pure compounds, mixtures of compounds, and degraded samples.

Coming back to post #131, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Robustness: the method gives consistent results when minor parameters vary. Tested by deliberately varying pH, temperature, flow rate, and mobile phase composition within reasonable ranges and demonstrating that results stay within acceptance.

Picking up post #131: that is the part I would want checked first.

Accuracy: the method measures what you intend to measure. For purity methods, this is tested by spike-and-recover experiments: add a known amount of impurity to a sample and measure whether you recover the added amount.