BenResearch_OR said:

Do it in two steps and it stops being confusing.

I am going to disagree with reconstituting low as a general rule. More diluent, more punctures, more in-use days at room temperature, and the stability trade-off is real. Precision is not the only variable being optimised.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Red flags, in rough order of how much they should worry you: no verifiable address, no batch numbers, prices far under market, vendor-commissioned tests only, pressure toward irreversible payment, and shipping with no temperature control.

sarah.morrison said:

I am going to disagree with reconstituting low as a general rule.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation. Independent test results commissioned by buyers rather than by the seller, consistency across multiple batches over time rather than one flattering report, a physical address and a company registration that resolve, batch and lot numbers on the actual labelling, and a shipping practice that matches what the material needs. Everything a good-looking website provides is cheap to fake; none of the items above are.

Worth separating that from vendor vetting, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

How much material I am losing to dead space, and whether that explains why a 10mg vial gives me nine usable draws rather than ten?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Resolved. I wrote mg, ml and mg/ml on the vial in marker and did the division in that order, and the two of us now get the same number every time.