mona_PHX said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
mona_PHX said:Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after mona_PHX’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
DanielChem_CHI said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.