What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly

What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.

A question about how a record should be read rather than about a supplier.

We have results from Medutest and from Janoshik on the same product line, months apart, agreeing closely. My question is what that agreement actually establishes, given that neither saw the other's sample.

I suspect the honest answer is narrower than it feels, and I would like it stated precisely.

Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.

That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.

Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.

I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.

Post #2 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.

If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.

Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.

Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.

The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.

The arithmetic in post #4 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.

Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.

Answering the question post #6 raises rather than the one it answers.

Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.

Post #8 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.

A modest claim, modestly supported.

I read post #6 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.

Post #9 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.

Building on post #9 rather than restating it.

Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.

Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.

Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.

I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.