Based on the records, no — in the one pair of 9076 experiments where the acrylate level was actually varied, raising it did not improve gloss.

The one controlled change in the records: Batch 48 (LBN 48 vs LBN 49). Batch 48's record carries two linked lab notebooks, LBN 48 and LBN 49, which differ in one input: Vicaspin LUB 1010 went from 178 gms to 208 gms while 2-ethyl hexyl acrylate stayed at 70 gms in both. The acrylate *mole ratio* (acrylate moles per phosphate ester) therefore fell, not rose: with the LUB 1010 molecular weight printed as MW-900, the ratio is 70/70 = 1.00 (LBN 48) vs 70/94.4 ≈ 0.74 (LBN 49). So LBN 49 is the *lower*-acrylate-ratio variant.

Gloss outcome: LBN 49's own ELN remarks read: "Tested over pigment Black, Blue, Violet-23/27 etc All having matching resolubility in black, blue & violet 27 while slight reduced in gloss found in all pigments" — i.e., the lower-acrylate-ratio batch was *inferior* in gloss. The application data for sample S 9076 #48 (trial 31.10.2025) confirms the direction: vs that day's BYK 9076 standard run, Gloss was 53.3 vs 62 (Violet 23), 4.6 vs 5.3 (Violet 27), 30.9 vs 31 (Black), 34.8 vs 34 (Blue). No record in this drop shows a *higher* acrylate ratio with a measured gloss result.

Gaps (stated plainly):

• The "Molar Ratio" and "No. of Moles" columns are blank in the OCR of every ELN that has them (LBN 48, LBN 49, LBN 51, Lab Batches 15/23/40, etc.) — no molar ratios are recorded as such; the values above are derived from the printed quantities.
• Gloss is qualitative in most ELNs; numeric gloss exists only in the application-test records (failed/not-ok reports only, plus S 9076 #48).
• No record documents an experiment in which the acrylate ratio was deliberately raised *above* the 1.00 level of LBN 48, so the question of whether a *raise* would help gloss is not answerable from this data — the only acrylate-ratio variation on record went down, and it worsened gloss.