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.

Worth separating that from certificates of analysis, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

One concrete data point for the thread. The four things to check on any report, in order: does it name your batch, who commissioned it, what method was used, and does it report content as well as purity. A report failing any of those is weak evidence regardless of the percentage on it.

labquiet_amy said:

I disagree that testing history is decisive.

Coming at labquiet_amy’s question from a different direction. They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate. Purity is a relative area measurement: the main peak as a percentage of total peak area in the chromatogram. Content is an absolute mass measurement against a reference standard. A vial can be 99% pure and contain 6.1mg — pure material, overfilled — or 99% pure and contain 3mg, which is pure material and a short fill. Purity tells you what fraction of what is there is the right molecule; content tells you how much of it there is. You need both, and a certificate with only purity is telling you half the story.

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

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

Closing the loop on my own question.

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.