The bit I’d flag, gently, sits underneath that lovely systemic-vs-local experiment you’re planning rather than in the trendline itself. By the time you run it, your BPC vial will have been reconstituted and punctured a good few weeks, and pentadecapeptide does lose potency over a multi-puncture vial life, slower than the GLP-1 peptides do, but not nothing. So if your week 7 or 8 comparison reads weaker than week 5, that could be the site-local arm genuinely underperforming, or it could just be the vial you drew from being older and a touch degraded. Same notebook entry, two completely different stories, and the chemistry hides inside the one you can’t see. Worth noting it cuts the other way too. If you started a fresh vial for the new arm, a step up in response might be vial freshness rather than the delivery route doing anything. Two clocks running, the protocol’s and the vial’s, and they’re easy to mistake for one. Doesn’t undo any of what you’ve logged, to be clear. The shrinking recovery window after that week 4 drilling is the cleanest signal in your post and harder to fake than absolute pain numbers. I’d just date and label each vial alongside the daily entries so vial age is a column you can actually back out later. Pepture has a decent reconstitution writeup if it’s useful (pepturepeptides.com/the-reconstitution/). Good luck with the rolling.