nick_SD_fit said:Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
nick_SD_fit said:Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
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 nick_SD_fit’s answer:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
kate.chem said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.