In this paper, a review of the analysis of Fe 2p3/2 peak and other transition metals in the austenitic stainless steel literature is presented. It reveals the significant shortcomings of the most widely used approaches, based on the principle of “chemistry fitting,” where single symmetric peaks are used to represent either individual oxidation states or specific compounds. No meaningful conclusions can be drawn from these commonly employed two- or three-component peak fitting (2C and 3C) approaches; the implication being that a large portion of the literature that relies on this approach is flawed. As a significantly more accurate and reliable alternative to “chemistry fitting,” we also assess “envelope fitting” (using empirical multiplet structures) and examine its limitations when applying the approach to austenitic stainless steel data. A detailed comparison of these two fitting approaches is described in Part I. For other elements such as Cr 2p, the problems associated with using single components to represent oxidation states or compounds are not as severe. It was found that it does not impact binding energy measurements, but does influence relative intensities, which will have a flow-on effect for oxide thickness calculations and obtaining a correct understanding of the surface more broadly.