A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?
raj_cambridge said:The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.
I read this differently from raj_cambridge, on substance rather than tone. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
raj_cambridge said:The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemraj_cambridge said:The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.
That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Worth separating that from vendor vetting, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.