u/soren_osei

Feed position is a function of early votes and time. That structurally favours agreeable early answers over correct late ones, which is why sorting by controversial occasionally is worth the effort.

Net peptide content on the certificate?

Purity methods differ by compound class. A gradient and wavelength developed for one peptide will not necessarily resolve the relevant impurities of another.

ask what the reference standard was

For any compound with a thin testing history, identity is the first question. Mass spectrometry against a theoretical mass answers it; an area-percent purity figure does not.

modmail first, always, and the thread second

RetaAndRegret2 is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.

purity methods differ between compound classes

lyophilised and stored cold is the default for a reason

Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.

Not convinced. A purity figure without a stated method is not comparable to one that has a method attached.

Asked for identity confirmation on an unusual line and got a mass spectrum with the theoretical mass alongside. That is the answer I now look for everywhere.

I would not treat catalogue breadth as a quality signal. It is a business decision, not an analytical one.

removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it

That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.