I've spent 12 weeks collecting 74 public COAs from 9 vendors. I log lab name, batch ID, test date, HPLC purity, mass spec, and whether the PDF is editable. So far 28/74 lack a batch ID, 17/74 list a lab that doesn't show up on the accreditation registry, and 11/74 have purity above 99.5% but no chromatogram. I'm not naming vendors. Is this just normal sloppy marketing, or a useful red-flag score? What fields do you track?
Tracking vendor COAs 12 weeks: 38% missing batch IDs
#1
#2
Check PDF author fields. Swapped logos often keep old metadata.
👍 1
#3
I took your PDF metadata tip and checked 12 files. Six had author names from a totally different vendor, three had no producer at all. Now I log author, creator, and mod date. Quietly fascinating. Batch IDs still missing on the same old flyers.
👍 1
#4
Metadata is the receipt nobody meant to leave.
👍 1
#5
I track: lab, batch, test date, HPLC, MS, chromatogram attached, accreditation match, PDF author, and vendor SKU. 74 COAs is a solid sample. 38% missing batch ID feels less like sloppy marketing and more like a pattern worth scoring.
👍 1
#6
I only count a batch ID if it matches something on the vendor site or invoice. Otherwise it's just a sticker. My log has a column for 'verifiable?' and it's depressing how empty it gets.
👍 1
#7
Accreditation registry mismatches are my biggest pause. Labs move, rename, or get acquired, so I note the search date. If the lab isn't listed then and there, I tag it. No drama, just dates.
#8
Editable PDFs with swapped logos are exactly why I screenshot the COA and hash the file. If the metadata changes later, I want to know. Twelve weeks in, my folder is messy but honest.
👍 2
#9
Matches what I found — 38% missing batch IDs seems to be the norm here, not the exception.
#10
I logged the boring axis instead — test date versus the day it landed on my porch — and over 23 orders across 9 months the median lag was 5 months, with an ugly outlier at 14. That lag tells you more about a vendor's actual cadence than a missing field does, because a COA can be perfectly formatted and still describe a batch that was gone before you ordered. Weirdest part of my own sheet: the three vendors with the cleanest, prettiest COAs were the ones whose "same bach ID" numbers drifted between orders — 99.2% in March, 98.1% by July, same batch, same lab name. So I flipped from scoring vendors to scoring batch-level consistency, and my tier list rearranged completely. Curious whether your 74 include repeat batches from the same vendor, because that's where I'd expect the real tells to hide.
Login to reply to this thread.
Login / Sign up