From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsquinn_sf said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Pushing back on quinn_sf here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.