A certificate whose chromatogram axes do not match its stated method

Posting this under the heading it deserves: A certificate whose chromatogram axes do not match its stated method Everything below is what sits behind that.

A narrow question about certificate whose chromatogram axes, deliberately narrow, because the broad version has been asked here four times and produced four long threads and no answer.

One question, stated units, stated method, and what I have already ruled out.

On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Inconsistency across documents: a certificate stating one purity, a website claiming another, and a supplier's verbal representation claiming a third, all on the same product, is a red flag for either incompetence or deception.

I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.

Counterpoint on certificate whose chromatogram axes, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.

This follows post #4 rather than contradicting it.

Reporting something here requires the batch, the date, the method and the document, which is exactly what makes the reports worth reading two years later.

Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.

A certificate that reports a specification in the result column is a documentation defect, and it is a defect people should be able to recognise without it being called anything worse.

That is the honest state of it as of this week.