Dr.SleepRoch said:

They are two different exemptions from the same federal requirements and they buy different things.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to. It is a different legal universe with no pharmacy oversight, no patient relationship and no content guarantee, and conflating the two in these threads helps nobody.

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.

Dr.ObesityMed said:

A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.

One thing that is still open after EndoResFellow’s answer:

Why a shortage listing created a legal pathway at all, since a shortage is a supply fact rather than a permission?

Closing the loop on my own question.

The bulks-list asymmetry was the piece I had missed entirely. It explains why one of my two pharmacies is still arguing it can supply and the other simply stopped.