InsuranceTom 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.

Dr.RheumBOS said:

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

Community-verified vendors for certificates of analysis: I maintain a spreadsheet of Janoshik-verified test results submitted by community members. Across 49 submitted tests:

• 78% tested at ≥98% purity
• 15% tested at 95-98% purity
• 7% tested at <95% purity (concerning)

The vendors with consistently high purity results are listed in the Vendor Directory. We update monthly based on new community submissions.

CarlaRPh_TPA said:

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

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: 99.6% purity
Day 28: 99.5% 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.

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

Why two laboratories report different purity for the same batch, and which number to believe?

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.