u/tomas_lehtinen

area% is not mass%, and the difference is the whole game

The PDF creation date being later than the analysis date is usually a re-issue or a re-export. It is worth one question and it is not evidence of anything on its own.

Correcting myself upthread: I said the date was missing and it is on the second page, which I had not scrolled to.

ask for the storage condition the stability statement was written against

Small fix — 214nm, not 280nm. It matters here because the impurity you are asking about barely absorbs at the longer wavelength.

ilias_cabrera is right that this is documentation rather than persuasion.

Disagreeing with this line: the deadline runs from the letter date and treating it otherwise is expensive.

That is a purity figure, not an identity confirmation. Two different tests and only one answers the question asked.

Every claim I could trace in this board went back to about four papers. That was a sobering afternoon.

post the whole document, not the headline number

Prior authorisation criteria are republished each plan year. A criterion that blocked you in one year may not exist in the next, so a denial is worth retesting after the turnover.

Batch number and date of analysis, are both on there?

New plan year, entirely new criteria, and the denial that had been immovable in the autumn simply did not apply in January.

write down when it starts and stops, the pattern is the useful part

Disagreeing with this one line: that symptom is not on the wait-and-see list and should not be posted as though it is.

That is the catalogue certificate rather than the batch-specific one. Same layout, completely different status.

hair shedding follows the weight loss, not the drug, and it stops

Same view.

Agreed, and the practical version is: ask for the itemised table. If it exists, you get it.

Ask what the stability statement was written against — temperature, light, and whether it was the lyophilised powder or the reconstituted solution. Those are three different claims.