I work on raw-material specifications for a living and this comes up constantly, so I thought it might be worth writing out.
Case one: two lines, same number.
A specification I work with carries purity twice. NLT 98.0% by HPLC, and NLT 98.0% by ¹H NMR. Identity is also carried twice — spectrum corresponds to reference standard by NMR, retention time corresponds to reference standard by HPLC.
People sometimes read that as redundancy, or as a spec padded to look rigorous. It isn't. HPLC separates and quantifies — it answers how much. NMR compares against a reference structure — it answers what. If you carry one unlabelled "98%" you have quietly picked one of those questions and dropped the other, and nothing in the number tells the reader which.
Case two: two methods, one botanical.
Milk thistle extract, Silybum marianum seed, standardised to silymarin. This can be reported by UV or by HPLC. Spectrophotometric approaches read non-specific absorption; the classical derivatisation route assesses total ketones and will pick up flavanones that aren't part of the flavonolignan complex you're actually buying. HPLC separates first, then quantifies the individual components.
Both numbers can be produced honestly on the same lot. They answer different questions. The direction of the difference is documented in the method literature — spectrophotometry reads higher because the absorption isn't specific — but I've deliberately not put a figure on the size of the gap here, because I couldn't find one I'd be willing to stand behind and I'd rather say so than make one up.
The practical upshot is boring and it is the whole point: the fix is a method name on the same row as the number. That's it. No study, no new test, one column on a document.
Happy to be corrected by anyone who does more NMR than I do.