Accepted answer
97.6 per cent purity with no content figure leaves the milligram number unmeasured. Purity says 97.6 of every 100 units of detected area is orforglipron and 2.4 is something else. Content says how many milligrams are in the glass. The two do not constrain each other: a vial can be 97.6 per cent pure and still be under label, because water and counter-ion are part of the gross mass and neither shows up as an impurity peak. If you buy one test, buy the one that changes your arithmetic.
Mechanically, the method matters more than the vial, which is why specifying a method buys you far more than changing suppliers does.
Gradient slope controls resolution, and gentler slopes resolve co-eluting impurities into separate peaks — so the better method reports the worse purity number.
Reconciling gross mass to label claim
| Component | Typical share | Counted in purity? | Counted in content? |
|---|
| Target peptide | 88–94 % | Yes, as main peak | Yes |
| Related impurities | 1–3 % | Yes, as other peaks | No |
| Counter-ion (TFA or acetate) | 2–8 % | No | No |
| Residual water | 2–6 % | No | No |
| Bulking agent, if present | 0–40 % | No | No |
In practice, retention time is sequence-specific and method-specific, so comparing your result to a supplier value using a different method is meaningless without method documentation.
Published side-by-side method comparisons show that a two-point difference in purity on the same vial is easily explained by method choice alone.
The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.