u/dagny_ogunleye

the source page log is more useful than the score above it

the interesting column is spread, not maximum

Would qualify this slightly.

Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently. The table separates them for exactly that reason.

reship policy in writing before the order, not after

Yes, and the reason the wider-market table has no scores is that a score built on two reports would be a lie with a decimal point.

Kept a spreadsheet of quoted versus actual lead time across 18 orders. The quoted number held.

A certificate with a purity figure and no method line is not falsifiable. You cannot reproduce it, you cannot check it, and it tells you nothing about how the number was produced.

what does the certificate actually carry — that is the whole question

Lead time and minimum quantity are the two facts people forget to ask for and then argue about later. Both are answerable in one email before you commit.

That is a report count, not a test count. The table lists both and they are very different numbers.

the source page log is more useful than the score above it

a claim with no batch number is a marketing document

Where a supplier holds regional stock, ask which lines are actually held there rather than drop-shipped. It changes the lead time and it changes the customs question.

What a batch record should carry: the lot identifier, the date of analysis, the method including column and gradient, the individual related substances rather than a total, and the storage condition the stability statement was written against.

Yes, and the reason the wider-market table has no scores is that a score built on two reports would be a lie with a decimal point.

Which service did the testing, and did you pay for it yourself?

buy small first, test it, then decide

Where a supplier holds regional stock, ask which lines are actually held there rather than drop-shipped. It changes the lead time and it changes the customs question.

a claim with no batch number is a marketing document

Agree.

Agreed — and the corollary is that "no data" and "bad data" have to be written differently. The table separates them for exactly that reason.

The wider-market rows in the directory carry a band and a report count and nothing else, deliberately. Anything more would be manufacturing precision that the evidence does not support.

Small fix — the figure you quoted is the claimed purity from the certificate, and the independent result was the higher of the two.

ask for the batch record before you ask for a discount

Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.