From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
sophie_paris said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
sophie_paris said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardssophie_paris said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.