Forced degradation studies: designing one that is informative — does this still hold?

The question in the title: Forced degradation studies: designing one that is informative — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.

A documentation question rather than an analytical one.

I have a certificate in front of me that reports a purity figure, names a technique, gives a wavelength, and stops. No gradient, no column, no injection volume, no chromatogram.

What can I legitimately conclude from that document? My instinct is "almost nothing, but not literally nothing", and I would like to know where the people who read these professionally draw the line.

Stability-indicating method: one that can separate a compound from its degradation products. Critical for assay methods that claim to measure actual degradation (as opposed to purity, which is orthogonal).

Worth separating two things that post #19 runs together.

Robustness: the method gives consistent results when minor parameters vary. Tested by deliberately varying pH, temperature, flow rate, and mobile phase composition within reasonable ranges and demonstrating that results stay within acceptance.

This follows post #27 rather than contradicting it.

System suitability: injections run at the start of a batch to establish that the instrument and column are performing. Acceptance criteria typically include replicate precision (RSD ≤2%), peak tailing (0.8–1.5), theoretical plates (>2000), and resolution (>1.5).

Picking up post #30: that is the part I would want checked first.

Forced degradation studies: deliberately stress the material with acid, base, oxidant, heat, light to generate degradation products and demonstrate that the method can separate them from the parent peak. Acceptance is that the method is stability-indicating.