From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemBethLabQueen said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.