DebRD_ATL said:

Prices dramatically below market are the strongest single signal, and the reason is arithmetic rather than suspicion.

That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

Shipping damage protocol for vendor vetting orders: if your package arrives with visible damage, temperature excursion, or broken vials:

• Photograph EVERYTHING before discarding packaging
• Note the temperature of the cold pack (liquid = possibly too warm)
• Contact the vendor within 24 hours with photos
• Request a replacement shipment or refund
• Do NOT use potentially compromised medication

Reputable vendors will replace damaged shipments without argument. If they push back, that's a red flag about the vendor.

hans_munich said:

The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.

Vendor reputation tracking for vendor vetting: I maintain a personal spreadsheet with every order I've placed — date, vendor, batch number, Janoshik result, personal efficacy assessment (1-5 scale), and any issues.

After 17 orders across 5 vendors: average purity 98.1%, zero sterility concerns, 0 shipping issues (all resolved). This data gives me confidence in my current source and documentation if issues arise.

I encourage everyone to track their orders systematically. Community data aggregation makes us all safer.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.