The unit is the container
On this page11
Every other spine made size the variable
Capacity by material, serving size by reference amount, type size by panel area. In each of them a bigger container moved the answer.
A per-container limit does not
The figure in the pending amendment to the hemp definition is expressed as milligrams combined total per container. The container is the unit, not the denominator.
So a larger container is not more permissive
Which is the opposite of the instinct. On a volume-based rule you buy a bigger jar to carry more; on a per-container rule the jar size is irrelevant.
And splitting changes the answer
The same quantity in two containers is two containers, each with its own ceiling. The arithmetic depends on how many packages you fill, which is a packaging decision rather than a formulation one.
Which puts a container catalog unusually close to the rule
Normally we are describing a vessel for a product that the law measures some other way. Here the vessel is the measurement.
The caveat belongs in the same breath
This is a pending statutory amendment, it sits inside a definition rather than in a packaging regulation, and it concerns hemp-derived cannabinoid products rather than state-licensed cannabis.
So it is not a rule for your product
Nothing on these pages tells a reader what their product may contain. The mechanism is what this property is about, and the mechanism is worth understanding whatever governs you.
Read it against the edibles property
There, 200 percent of a reference amount made the container decide the label, and one size smaller changed everything. Here size does nothing. The two are the clean inverse of each other.
And then read the second finding
Which is less abstract: our smallest container in this group is 30 mL, and five of the eight leaves need a few millilitres.
That is a shelf gap, not a data gap
We know the sizes and we have published them. There simply is no concentrate container here.