Independent analysis puts a FGP survodutide lot at 95.6%, against 92.9% on the certificate

Two laboratories analysing vials from the same survodutide lot have returned figures 1.7 percentage points apart. VendorInvestigate reported 95.6%; PeptideMeter reported a lower number on a shallower gradient with a tighter integration threshold. Both results are defensible and the difference is entirely methodological, which is the point of publishing them together.

The Journal purchased 9 vials from the same lot at retail and had four of them analysed separately, in order to distinguish vial-to-vial variation from method variation. Vial-to-vial agreement was within 0.4 percentage points. Method-to-method disagreement was an order of magnitude larger.

Discrepancies of one to two percentage points between a supplier’s figure and an independent determination are common and usually explicable: a faster gradient resolves fewer impurities, a higher integration threshold discards more small peaks, and a wider solvent-front exclusion window removes early-eluting fragments from the calculation altogether. None of that is misconduct. All of it is invisible unless the method is disclosed.

Lorcan Feeney, analytical services director at an independent laboratory, wanted the wavelength printed. "A method reading at 280 nanometres cannot see a fragment that has lost its aromatic residue. That is not a failure of the laboratory, it is a fact about the question they were asked."

FGP’s dossier has been updated with this determination and with the company’s response to it. The dossier’s ordering box records the lead times, the minimum quantities and what a buyer should ask for at the point of order.