kevin_tulsa said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
kevin_tulsa said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
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 kevin_tulsa’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
FDA_TrackerJim 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.