julia.endo said:

The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.

I disagree that testing history is decisive. It tells you what a supplier did when they were being watched. Continuity of behaviour under stress — a late shipment, a failed test, a complaint — is more predictive than any run of good results.

LarryQC_SD said:

Eight months with one supplier, then a change in how they communicate that I noticed before I noticed anything about the product.

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.

labquiet_amy said:

I disagree that testing history is decisive.

Coming at labquiet_amy’s question from a different direction. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

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

What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?

OP 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.