A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
hank_denver said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Pushing back on hank_denver here. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardshank_denver said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.