Forced degradation studies: designing one that is informative — does this still hold?

The question in the title: Forced degradation studies: designing one that is informative — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.

The question about Forced degradation studies that I actually want answered is the second one below. The first is context and I have kept it short.

Both are stated with units, and I have said what I already checked so that nobody repeats it.

Forced degradation studies: deliberately stress the material with acid, base, oxidant, heat, light to generate degradation products and demonstrate that the method can separate them from the parent peak. Acceptance is that the method is stability-indicating.

That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.

Coming back to post #19, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

A stability-indicating method is one demonstrated to resolve the analyte from its degradation products, usually through forced degradation. Calling a method stability-indicating without that work is a claim rather than a property.

The arithmetic in post #27 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Where a pharmacopoeial monograph exists, a method that follows it inherits a great deal of assurance. Almost nothing discussed here has one.

Building on post #30 rather than restating it.

Adding a reference point for Forced degradation studies. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.