The practical answer
Score six areas before ordering: business identity, lot-level documentation, written policies, regulatory history, payment recourse and claims language. Some items stop the review outright, such as product pages making disease or weight-loss claims, which FDA has cited as evidence of intended human use despite research-only labels. Otherwise, a high total means pause and ask, not buy. [1] [2]
Evidence, method & source dates ↓How to use the score
Score each item 0 if you hold the evidence, 1 if it is missing or unclear, and 2 if you found a red flag. Items marked "stop" end the review on their own, whatever the total. The thresholds are our editorial suggestion for a documentation review. They are not a quality rating and say nothing about the product in the vial.
Collect the evidence as files or dated screenshots, not memory. Supplier pages change, and your file should show what you relied on when you ordered.
The checklist
Work down the table and write the evidence in the last column. The download template uses the same structure.
| Area | Item | Red flag (score 2 or stop) | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | Legal entity named | No legal name in terms or checkout (2) | Terms page, invoice header |
| Identity | Physical address | Address cannot be matched to a business record (2) | Address, business registry search result |
| Documentation | Lot-matched certificate | Supplier refuses a certificate for the lot offered (stop) | Request and reply with dates |
| Documentation | Testing laboratory named | No laboratory or report number on certificates (2) | Certificate copy |
| Documentation | Accreditation checkable | Accreditation claimed but not found in a signatory body directory (2) | ILAC signatory search and directory result [3] |
| Policies | Damage and loss claims | No written damage or loss policy (2) | Policy page saved on order date |
| Policies | Guarantee wording matches terms | Marketing guarantee not found in written terms (1) | Homepage and terms side by side |
| Regulatory | FDA warning letters and import alerts | Open warning letter naming the seller (stop pending review) | FDA search result with date |
| Payment | Protected payment option | Crypto or personal transfer only (2) | Checkout screenshot |
| Payment | Dispute wording | Threats or penalties for using card dispute rights (1) | Policy text |
| Claims language | Research-only presentation | Disease, weight-loss or performance claims, or dosing content (stop) | Product page screenshots |
Claims language: the clearest stop signal
A "research use only" label does not settle how FDA reads a product. In its December 2024 warning letter to Summit Research Peptides, FDA said that despite labels stating "RESEARCH USE ONLY" and "INTENDED AS A RESEARCH CHEMICAL ONLY", website and social media content, including descriptions of therapeutic uses for semaglutide and similar products in diabetes and obesity, established that the products were intended as drugs for human use. [1] In December 2025 FDA wrote to Pinnacle Peptides citing website claims about tumour growth, bone mineral density and muscle mass on products labelled "FOR RESEARCH ONLY". [2]
For a laboratory buyer, such claims matter for two reasons: the supplier is exposed to enforcement that can interrupt supply, and its documentation was evidently not written for a research audience. Our separate guide on running an FDA background check shows how to search warning letters and import alerts.
Payment and policy items
Payment recourse belongs in the review because it decides what you can recover. The FTC says cryptocurrency payments have no legal protections and are typically not reversible, while credit and debit cards do have protections. [4] For card disputes it notes that quality disputes require you to have tried to resolve the problem with the seller first. [5]
Policy wording deserves the same care. OMNI Peptides, for example, asks for damage claims within 48 hours of delivery and warns that a chargeback filed without contacting it first may lead to account suspension. [6] That is not disqualifying, but it is a short window you need to plan receiving around. Evolve Peptides' homepage promises a 200% refund if purity does not match the label, while the returns and refunds page we read describes a 60-day money-back guarantee for unopened products and did not mention the 200% promise. [7] [8] Ask for the written conditions of any guarantee before relying on it.
Stop or continue
Add up the scored items. These cut-offs are our suggestion; adjust them to your institution's risk policy and write down the version you used.
| Result | Meaning | Next action |
|---|---|---|
| Any stop item | A basic requirement failed | Do not order; record the reason and evidence |
| Total 0 to 4 | Evidence mostly in hand | Continue; verify the certificate for the received lot on arrival |
| Total 5 to 9 | Several gaps | Pause; send written questions and re-score on the answers |
| Total 10 or more | Gaps across several areas | Do not order unless the gaps close in writing |
Questions to send before ordering
Keep replies with dates. A supplier that answers clearly and in writing usually scores well on its own. This checklist is for laboratory procurement only and gives no guidance on any use of the material.
- What legal entity will invoice this order, and at what address?
- Please send the certificate for the lot you will ship, naming the testing laboratory and report number.
- Which accreditation body and certificate number cover the tests on the certificate?
- What is your written policy for damaged, missing or lost shipments, and the claim window?
- Which payment methods can we use, and what name appears on the statement?
- Please confirm the written conditions of any purity or refund guarantee.
Questions before you decide
Does a "research use only" label protect the buyer?
It describes the seller's intended market. FDA warning letters show it does not prevent enforcement when the seller's own pages make human-use claims, so treat such claims as a stop signal.
Is a supplier without reviews a red flag?
Lack of reviews is missing evidence, not a red flag. Score it as unclear and rely on documentation and written answers instead.
How often should I re-score a supplier?
Before each new lot or after any policy change. Pages change, and the score applies to what you could verify on a given date.
Check the underlying evidence
Sources & review dates
- FDA warning letter: Summit Research Peptides, 10 Dec 2024 ↗Accessed 29 Oct 2026
- FDA warning letter: Pinnacle Professional Research dba Pinnacle Peptides, 12 Dec 2025 ↗Accessed 29 Oct 2026
- ILAC: ILAC MRA and Signatories ↗Accessed 29 Oct 2026
- FTC: What To Know About Cryptocurrency and Scams ↗Accessed 29 Oct 2026
- FTC: Using Credit Cards and Disputing Charges ↗Accessed 29 Oct 2026
- OMNI Peptides: refunds and returns policy ↗Accessed 29 Oct 2026
- Evolve Peptides: homepage guarantee statements ↗Accessed 29 Oct 2026
- Evolve Peptides: returns and refunds ↗Accessed 29 Oct 2026
Sources are documentary evidence. They do not establish firsthand testing of a listed supplier.