Dr.MetabolicMD said:

Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is. The document tells you about a sample somebody chose to send, at a moment in time, and nothing about the vial in your hand. Independent purchase-and-test is a different quality of evidence and everything else is inference.

ricardo_MIA said:

Two reports on the same product from two laboratories, four percentage points apart, and no method stated on either.

Reconstituted peptide stability data for certificates of analysis: I had Janoshik test my reconstituted vial at day 1, day 14, and day 28 stored in the refrigerator.

Day 1: 100.3% purity
Day 14: 99.3% purity
Day 28: 97.3% purity

Minimal degradation over 28 days when properly refrigerated. This confirms the standard 28-day beyond-use date is appropriate. Beyond 28 days, I'd reconstitute a fresh vial to be safe.

Dr.BariatricHTX said:

I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is.

Third-party testing services for certificates of analysis besides Janoshik:

• Janoshik: Gold standard for peptide community, ~$123, 10-14 day turnaround
• Valitech: US-based, ISO 17025 accredited, ~$223
• Eurofins: Full pharmaceutical testing suite, more expensive but comprehensive
• ChemTox: Basic identity and purity testing, ~$103

Janoshik is the community standard but any ISO-accredited analytical lab can verify peptide identity and purity. The key is independence — don't rely solely on the vendor's own testing.

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

Whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong?

Closing the loop on my own question.

Purity and content being different measurements was the piece I was missing. The vial was overfilled and pure, which is a very different problem from the one I thought I had.