JennaRN 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.

AttorneyGrant said:

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

My vendor review relevant to certificates of analysis: ordered 3 times from my current compounder. Consistency has been excellent.

Shipping: Next-day with cold pack
Packaging: Professional, discreet, proper labeling with lot/batch numbers
Purity: 99.0% average across orders (Janoshik verified)
Customer service: Responsive within 2 hours
Price: $144/month for semaglutide 1.7mg equivalent

Dr.GastroMayo said:

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

COA red flags for certificates of analysis — here's what to look for when reviewing a Certificate of Analysis:

• No HPLC data: If there's no chromatography graph, it's not a real COA
• Exact 100% purity: Suspicious — real testing always shows slight variation
• No batch number: Can't trace back to specific production
• No endotoxin testing: For injectables, this is essential
• Template looks like it was made in Word: Professional labs have standardized formats

I have seen fake COAs that are literally photoshopped. Always verify independently if possible.

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

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

Reporting back.

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.