Originally Posted by PeterWol62
The statement quoted makes absolutely no specific assertions about the applicability 325 nm laser with the 1200 t / mm grating for the frequency ranges in question.
However, as a conditional statement it does make a specific assertion to your claim "that only the resolution would be degraded". In that it limits the assertion to the specific condition of both gratings being optimized (blazed, the cut angle noted by HappySkeptic99 ) in the UV.
Per google translate.
While the 2400 grating appears to be so optimized, the 1200 grating doesn't. Hence, the quote doesn't support your claim. As I recall in the original discussion of this topic the wavelength in question even fell outside the range of just the 325 nm laser with the 2400 t / mm grating by about 1/2 again of that total range.
For MarcoM85BG’s chart most of the relevant features fall within the stated range of 325 nm laser with the 2400 t / mm grating. One falls just outside. So there would be absolutely no reason to use the 1200 t / mm grating other than just to get crap data or, as W.D.Clinger notes, instrument and/or configuration specific artifacts. None of which bodes well for Mills.
Also quoting an answer without the presented question is disingenuous to say the least.
I think you should try a heck of a lot harder.