Why one laboratory's 98.4% and another's 96.1% may not contradict — one year on

On post #4 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

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.

Worth separating two things that post #7 runs together.

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.

post #11 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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).

On post #11 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.