This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product. A bad batch comes with communication, a reshipment offer and a batch number. An exit comes with slower replies, pressure toward less reversible payment methods, sudden discounting, and the same reassurance repeated without any new information. The product tells you less than the correspondence does.

JennaRN said:

The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product.

Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency. Consistency means separate batches, separately commissioned, over months.

TomTeleRx said:

Six orders from the same supplier over eight months, every one independently tested, and the consistency is the part worth reporting rather than any…

Same position here, arrived at the long way round. 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.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.

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 19 orders across 4 vendors: average purity 98.7%, zero sterility concerns, 2 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.