experimental data using kred = 10 8 M -1 •s -1 and k3 = 5 × 10 4 M - 1 •s -1 (blue curve in Figure ). This latter result definitely validates the model in Scheme 3 as well as the selected set of rate constants. With this tool in hand, it was next interesting to go back to the data with P2 in order to see to what extent the autocatalytic kinetic traces in Figure can be predicted by the model in Scheme 3 and the associated rate constants (excluding of course from the model the first deprotection which does not take place with P2). The bestsimulated curves are reported in Figure using the rate constants gathered in the entry 6 of Table . To obtain such a good fit, it was necessary to adjust the rate constant kn to a non-null value, which is not surprising as for simulating the nonspecific autocatalytic response of P2, it is now necessary to consider the probe autoxidation as the main source of nonspecificity (thus controlled by kn) and no longer the NADH autoxidation (kns). A kn of 0.25 M -1 •s -1 was thus set from the alignment of the simulated nonspecific response to the experimental one. This value is significantly lower than the value of 1.2 M -1 •s -1 previously derived from the H2O2-mediated deprotection of P2, therefore confirming that there is an inhibition of the autoxidation of P2 under the reducing conditions of autocatalysis. The theoretical H2O2 calibration plot that was finally extracted from the simulated kinetic traces fits nicely to the experimental calibration plot in Figure . This is a strong plea for the validity of the proposed model. It also demonstrates the excellent self-consistency of our results. Armed with this knowledge, it was next interesting to identify the keys rate constants controlling the rate of autocatalysis but also to determine what limits the analytical performances of the method.