sean_dublin said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemlisa_labSD said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from lisa_labSD, on substance rather than tone. Filing an objection on the n=1 problem. Personal experience is genuine evidence about one person and very weak evidence about anybody else, and this thread keeps promoting the first into the second.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong. The measurement I was reading had moved less than its own week-to-week variation, which somebody said upthread and I did not believe.