One concrete data point for the thread. The four things to check on any report, in order: does it name your batch, who commissioned it, what method was used, and does it report content as well as purity. A report failing any of those is weak evidence regardless of the percentage on it.
Following on from rachel_ABQ — and this may be the naive question:
What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?
dan_philly said:The four things to check on any report, in order: does it name your batch, who commissioned it, what method was used, and does it report content as…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers. Does the report name the batch on your vial. Is the date consistent with when that batch existed. Is it addressed to the vendor or to the person who paid for the test. Was the sample taken from general stock or supplied by the vendor. A perfect certificate for a different batch is worth nothing, and vendor-supplied samples are the most common way a genuine report ends up misleading.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Went back through my own correspondence with an earlier supplier and the warning signs were all there in the replies, weeks before the quality changed. I was reading the product and not the behaviour.
Dr.PainCLE said:The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.
Agreed, with a caveat about community reputation: it is a lagging indicator. Reports arrive weeks after orders, so a supplier can look excellent for a month after quality has already changed.