Batch 48 (LBN 48) raw materials per the ELN and Expt Table records:

1. Vicaspin LUB 1010 (R225100845) Bu- EO-PO HV-62.3/ MW-900 — source Viswaat, 178 gms, MW 900, 0.197 moles [LBN 48.pdf, pages 1-2]
2. P2O5 — source Commercial, 9.357 gms, MW 141.94, 0.0658 moles [LBN 48.pdf, pages 1-2]
3. Epomine SP-018 — source Nippon, 30 gms, 100% purity [LBN 48.pdf, pages 1-2]
4. 2 ethyl hexyl acrylate — 70 gms, 100% purity, MW 184.27 [LBN 48.pdf, pages 1-2]

Additional materials in the downstream modification step labelled LBN-48 (Q) (step 4): RM from above Batch (intermediate), Acrylate, Dimethyl sulphate, Phosphate — quantities recorded as fractions 0.15 / 0.005 / 0.85 in the Expt Table [28112025 9076 Expt Table 2025.xls, sheet 9076_Experiments, batch block '48', csv rows 1-11].

The conclusion for Batch 48 is recorded in two equivalent places in the structured record:

• conclusion field: "Tested over pigment Black, Blue, Violet-23/27 etc All having matching resolubility while reduced gloss in violet"
• outcome.status / basis: "ok", with basis text identical to the conclusion, cited to [LBN 48.pdf, page 2].

The observations field repeats this: "Tested over pigment Black, Blue, Violet-27 etc All having matching resolubility while reduced gloss in violet; Tested on Violet 23 resolubility ok" (note the minor typo "Violet-27" in the Expt Table-derived text vs "Violet-23/27" in the ELN-derived text).

The underlying application-test data (trial 31.10.2025, NC-PU ink) that supports this conclusion, vs that day's BYK 9076 standard:

• Black: Gloss 30.9 vs 31 (Eq to Std)
• Blue: Gloss 34.8 vs 34 (Transparent)
• Violet 23: Gloss 53.3 vs 62 (Opaque — reduced gloss)
• Violet 27: Gloss 4.6 vs 5.3 (Eq to Std)

So the stated verdict is that the product matched resolubility across all tested pigments while showing reduced gloss specifically in the violet system.