FitDadDave said:

Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

No disagreement with FitDadDave. One condition attached. They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate. Purity is a relative area measurement: the main peak as a percentage of total peak area in the chromatogram. Content is an absolute mass measurement against a reference standard. A vial can be 99% pure and contain 6.1mg — pure material, overfilled — or 99% pure and contain 3mg, which is pure material and a short fill. Purity tells you what fraction of what is there is the right molecule; content tells you how much of it there is. You need both, and a certificate with only purity is telling you half the story.

FitDadDave said:

Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is. The document tells you about a sample somebody chose to send, at a moment in time, and nothing about the vial in your hand. Independent purchase-and-test is a different quality of evidence and everything else is inference.

Short answer first, then the reasoning. The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers. Does the report name the batch on your vial. Is the date consistent with when that batch existed. Is it addressed to the vendor or to the person who paid for the test. Was the sample taken from general stock or supplied by the vendor. A perfect certificate for a different batch is worth nothing, and vendor-supplied samples are the most common way a genuine report ends up misleading.

NurseKim_ATL said:

They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.