Reusable review structure · version 1.0
A blank supplier review. Every criterion begins as Not assessed. Missing review work is never presented as missing supplier documentation.
Supplier name and exact domain; legal entity where verifiable; reviewer; conflicts; scope and sampled products/lots; inspection dates; publication date; next review; evidence snapshots; method version; correction history. No supplier finding is populated in this template.
Also record the access result: inspected, not publicly located in the documented search, access restricted, requested and awaiting reply, or not applicable with a reason. These describe access, not authenticity or product safety.
Does the report identify the exact advertised product, strength, form and lot?
Evidence to record: Product URL and dated label image; lot/batch ID; report ID and dates; match or mismatch explained. A generic or historical report is not a current-lot match.
Can the laboratory and report be independently verified?
Evidence to record: Original report and verification URL/ID; laboratory identity; accreditation scope where claimed; verification date and method; supplier–lab relationship. A logo or QR code alone is insufficient.
What supports the exact compound, sequence and modifications claimed?
Evidence to record: Reported identity method, result and limitations; reference standard; full-length versus fragment; DAC and other modifications. Mass alone may not resolve all structural alternatives.
What does the purity percentage actually measure?
Evidence to record: Method, chromatogram where available, integration basis, specification, result and method limitations. HPLC area percentage is not automatically mass fraction, identity or biological safety.
Was the advertised quantity of each compound measured?
Evidence to record: Analyte-specific quantitative method, units, uncertainty where reported and per-vial result; each blend component separately. Gross vial or powder weight can include excipients and is not necessarily active-compound content.
Which microbial or sterility claims are supported by which tests?
Evidence to record: Exact method, sample number, dates, specifications and results. A PCR microbial screen is not automatically equivalent to a validated sterility test. Absence of detected organisms has a defined sample/method scope.
Is endotoxin testing reported separately from microbial or sterility testing?
Evidence to record: Method, numerical result, units, detection/quantitation limits, tested dilution and product-specific acceptance rationale where supplied. Do not turn a result into a universal human-use safety threshold.
What testing addresses relevant chemical contaminants?
Evidence to record: Heavy metals, residual solvents or other relevant impurities; methods, analytes, units, limits, results and sample/lot linkage. Record untested categories explicitly without inventing required universal panels.
Who selected and submitted the sample, and what does it represent?
Evidence to record: Supplier-submitted versus independently purchased sample; chain of custody; batch size/sample size; packaging and custody gaps. One tested vial cannot establish every shipment matches.
What supports storage, shipping and shelf-life claims for the exact preparation?
Evidence to record: Formulation/route as advertised, packaging, stability study or other stated basis, conditions, dates and limitations. Ingredient data do not automatically validate a blend or finished product.
Do claims match their cited evidence and the actual product?
Evidence to record: Dated claim/source pairs; study species, preparation, route and outcome; exact approval/accreditation assertions and primary-source check. Research-use disclaimers are not proof of human safety or regulatory compliance.
Can the operator and relevant policies be identified?
Evidence to record: Exact domain/entity where verified; contact and policy URLs; refund/shipping/recall and lot-traceability processes; discrepancies and verification limits. No publication of private personal details.
Could financial relationships affect this assessment?
Evidence to record: Reviewer/supplier relationships, gifts, compensation and sample funding; no paid rankings or compound-supplier affiliate incentives. Separate accessories commerce from review findings.
Can findings be challenged and corrected with evidence?
Evidence to record: Dated question, response or no response as of date; supporting material; original conclusion and revision; human editorial approval; next review and stale status.
Claim quoted or precisely paraphrased; product and lot; source URL; access date; retained snapshot/hash; test/report date; report identifier; laboratory; submitter and sample provenance; method; units; limits/specifications; result; verification steps; conclusion and limitations; reviewer approval. Raw evidence is retained privately when publication would expose personal information.
Summarize documented strengths, unresolved questions and inconsistencies without an overall safety score. Include the supplier response, changes made and dated correction history. Adverse findings or assessment changes require human editorial approval before publication.
Download the blank review structure (JSON) · Supplier transparency policy