Independent Verification

What the free PeptideClear Trust Index can't tell you

The PeptideClear Trust Index and Responsible Practice assessment are free, mechanical, and the same for everyone. They tell you whether a retailer publishes checkable paperwork and communicates clearly. They cannot tell you whether a named lab actually issued a given certificate, whether the batch on that certificate is the batch you'd actually receive, or whether the company behind a polished storefront has a clean corporate history. Independent Verification is a human-run digital evidence assessment that goes behind those signals and tests how far a retailer's testing claims, laboratory relationships, batch traceability, business identity, catalogue and marketing claims can be independently established from what's publicly accessible online.

What this is, and isn't

Independent Verification does not inspect premises, purchase products, take custody of samples, or conduct independent laboratory testing. It reviews publicly accessible websites, records, registers, laboratory verification systems and other digital sources available at the time of the assessment. Where something can't be independently established this way, we record that as a limitation rather than assuming the underlying claim is false. Every material finding carries a rating for how independently it was established, not just a verdict — see "how strong is the evidence" below.

The scoring stays free and stays independent, always.

Nobody can pay to change a CoA tier or a Responsible Practice status: those are computed identically for everyone and paying for Independent Verification does not touch them. What payment buys is work: a specific, deeper set of checks run and published, whatever they find. If a paid check finds a problem, we publish the problem.

How strong is the evidence

Every finding is rated by how independently it was established, not just recorded as pass or fail. A CoA we couldn't verify against an outside source isn't "failed" — it's rated lower on this scale, and reported that way.

Independently digitally verified — confirmed at the source itself: the lab's own report-lookup system, the accreditation body's own register.

Independent public-source evidence — Companies House, an accreditation register, an ASA or MHRA record: third-party, not retailer-controlled.

Retailer-published evidence — on the retailer's own site, not independently confirmed elsewhere.

Retailer clarification — supplied during right of reply, not independently confirmable online.

Unable to establish — no sufficient evidence located either way.

What it checks

Eight areas, each with a specific, itemised checklist rather than a vague promise to "look into it." This is the actual list used to run the pilot, not a marketing summary of it.

1 · Laboratory & testing-source verification

· Is the named laboratory independently identifiable, separate from the retailer itself?
· Does its published contact and identity information match what's shown on the CoA?
· Does the laboratory publicly offer the type of testing claimed?
· Is accreditation claimed, and where it is, can it be independently confirmed against the accreditation body's own register?
· Accreditation body and reference number, where available
· Whether the published scope plausibly covers the method used, where scope information is itself available digitally
· Does the lab provide its own online report-verification system?
· Consistency of lab identity across multiple reports and products

2 · CoA, batch & report traceability

· Do published reports carry unique batch or lot identifiers?
· Are different products' reports genuinely distinct, or one report reused across several?
· Report or reference number present and resolvable
· Testing date present, and whether it plausibly relates to current stock
· Compound identity and purity/quantity results actually reported, not a template pass/fail
· QR or link verification against the lab's own system, where offered
· Any duplicate or reused reports across the catalogue
· Traceability calculated across the whole catalogue and reported as coverage — e.g. "41/47 products batch-linked (87%)" — not a single yes/no

3 · Corporate identity & history

· Companies House match: entity, status, incorporation date
· Officer and PSC identity, and connected companies clearly evidenced through them
· Strike-off notices and Gazette filings, not just final "dissolved" status, which fires after the fact
· Registered address type: genuine premises, residential, serviced office, or a known mass company-formation building
· Whether the registered or trading address matches what the site itself claims
· Previous or connected entities identified where the evidence supports it — reported as fact, not as a verdict

4 · Public regulatory & enforcement record

· Named-entity search of MHRA enforcement notices and public alerts
· Named-entity search of ASA rulings
· Trading Standards or other relevant UK regulator checks where applicable
· Standard result: "no relevant public record identified in the sources searched, as of [date]" — never "no regulatory history," which nobody can prove

5 · Full catalogue & product presentation review

· Every live SKU checked, not just the fixed compound list the free tier tracks
· Any product sold under a codename or development code with no compound identity disclosed
· Any format that reads as built for human use despite RUO framing — flagged for review, not declared unlawful
· Any benefit or health claim language on product pages
· Consistency of the research-use disclaimer across the whole catalogue, not a sample

6 · Business records & conduct

· Privacy policy, terms, and returns policy: present, real, and not a template placeholder left unfilled
· Named human contact, if any exists anywhere on the site or the Companies House record
· Data controller named in the privacy policy
· Any self-contradicting policies (e.g. a returns page and the terms page disagreeing)
· Payment methods identified where publicly visible

7 · Claims evidence & citation verification

· Every efficacy or outcome claim on the page, listed individually
· Every study a retailer cites in support of a claim, checked for whether it actually exists
· Whether the population, route of administration and dose in the cited study match the product being sold, not a different-context study
· Any absolute or superlative claim ("guaranteed", "clinically proven") without a named, checkable source
· Whether preliminary evidence carries appropriate qualifiers, or uncertainty is flattened into certainty

The same citation-density discipline the rest of this site runs on, aimed at a retailer's own claims instead of the research literature.

8 · Claims & marketing presentation review

What would an ordinary customer take away from this page, reading only what's on it, not digging into linked studies?

Core offer clarity

· What the product/service actually is, stated in plain terms above the fold, not just implied by branding
· What it does not do: are limitations stated anywhere, or only benefits?
· Who it's for and not for, including any contraindications
· Full price and any recurring, subscription, or upsell costs, visible before checkout
· Material terms (cancellation, refund, delivery, contract length) not buried

Comparisons, reviews, trust signals

· Are competitor comparisons sourced and fair, or cherry-picked/strawman?
· Are testimonials and reviews genuine and disclosed (verified purchase, incentivised, paid)?
· Any expert or practitioner endorsement: role, qualification, and financial relationship disclosed?
· Trust badges and logos: do they link to real, checkable sources, or are they decorative?

Risk and regulatory tier

· Which regulatory tier the product actually sits in, and whether the site follows those rules
· Known risks, side effects, and contraindications stated prominently, not buried in an FAQ
· Any implied regulatory approval or endorsement that doesn't actually exist
· Age-restriction or vulnerable-customer handling where relevant

Overall impression test: reading only what's on the page, would an ordinary customer end up with an accurate picture of what the product does, what it costs, and what its risks are? Does anything rely on omission or ambiguous wording to close the sale? Would the page survive that reading, or does it need the reader to fill in gaps in the seller's favour?

Still refining

Whether we actively search for negative coverage. Today we check MHRA, ASA, and public regulatory records per retailer, but there's no systematic "search the open web for complaints or scam reports" step yet, and no defined process for what happens when one turns up. Not built yet.

We tell you what we found before we publish it

The full assessment runs first, independently, before the retailer is contacted. Findings are then classified — verified, resolved during review, unresolved, or unable to establish — and only the points that need clarification go to the retailer: "We were unable to independently establish X through the digital sources available to us. If there's a publicly accessible source we've missed, send us the URL and we'll review it." We don't ask for private documents.

The retailer has 10 working days to respond, one extension available on request. Their response, or their decision not to respond, becomes part of the published record either way. A published report includes the full trail: what the initial finding was, what the retailer said, and what the final result is — not just a headline verdict.

This matters for accuracy and it matters for fairness: it's the difference between "we found a company record that concerned us" and "we found a company record that concerned us, and here is the retailer's explanation." A legitimate business with a good answer should never be indistinguishable from one that doesn't have one.

The rules, written down and non-negotiable

· Response window: 10 working days from first contact, one extension available on request. We log the date a finding was put to a retailer and the date (if any) they responded.
· Payment buys the assessment, not the result. The same checks and the same publication rule apply whether the findings are favourable or adverse. We do not sell a "verified" badge; we sell the work, and publish whatever it finds.
· Findings publish either way. A retailer cannot pay to suppress a completed adverse finding. Non-response is published as a fact ("no response received by [date]"), not implied.
· Never touches the free tier. The CoA score and Responsible Practice status are computed identically for every retailer, paid or not, and Independent Verification cannot change either one.
· Never appears in the main comparison table. Independent Verification status is shown only on a retailer's own page, never as a column, a sort key, or a filter on the free index. A retailer without it should never look worse in the table for that reason alone.
· We publish our own participation numbers: how many retailers have commissioned Independent Verification, and how many of those runs produced an unresolved or adverse finding. If that second number is always zero, that is itself worth noticing.
· Disputing a specific finding is free. If new evidence resolves it, the record gets a dated correction note. This is different from a full re-audit — see below.
· A full re-audit is a new commission. If a retailer's situation has genuinely changed, or enough time has passed, they can request the whole assessment be run again. That's a fresh engagement, not a free re-run — otherwise disputing a finding would just become a way to keep re-rolling for a better result.
· PeptideClear may, at its own discretion, verify beyond digital sources — for example, purchasing a product directly for independent review. This isn't offered as part of a paid engagement, isn't commissioned by any retailer, and isn't guaranteed for any specific one.
· Delivered under a separate commercial engagement. Independent Verification is commissioned and invoiced through LionCrownX Ltd, not through PeptideClear's editorial and publishing operation. See how PeptideClear is funded.

What you get

Independently Verified

Every check completed, nothing material and unresolved. Some individual findings may have needed clarification and been resolved during the review window — the published report shows that, rather than hiding it behind a clean headline.

Independent Verification: unresolved finding

A specific, named, material finding that the retailer either didn't respond to or couldn't resolve with evidence, published alongside everything that did check out.

A separate status from the CoA tier and Responsible Practice assessment, shown on the retailer's own page. The result is never "pass" or "fail" dressed up as something else, and an unresolved finding is reported as exactly that, not converted into a verdict we can't actually stand behind.

Participation so far

1 commissioned

0 unresolved finding

Since this tier launched 11 August 2026, 1 retailer has commissioned it, with no unresolved findings so far.

Who this is for

Retailers

A way to demonstrate more than the free index can show, on top of a CoA tier and Responsible Practice status you already earned for free by publishing good paperwork. This is additive, never a substitute for it, and never a way to move the free score. Open to any UK research-peptide retailer who requests it, not by invitation.

Buyers and researchers

If you're weighing a specific retailer and the free index leaves you with real, unanswered questions, you can request an in-depth check be run. We scope and price it, and the published result is public, not sent only to you.

Cost

Priced per request, because the scope varies a lot: a corporate-and-regulatory-history check is a different job to a full catalogue sweep and claims audit. Periodic spot-checks are available as a separate, recurring service once the initial verification is complete — see what these are and aren't. Tell us what you need checked below and we'll come back with scope and cost within 72 hours. Nothing is charged until you confirm.

Periodic spot-checks

Verified retailers also receive periodic spot-checks: a mixture of rotating and risk-based checks designed to identify material changes or emerging issues. These are proportionate, sampled checks, not a repeat of the full Independent Verification, and they don't cover every product, claim or certificate each time.

Rotating — a different sample of CoAs, products, claims and business status each cycle, so what's checked isn't predictable.
Risk-based — prioritises anything flagged as a non-material observation last time, anything that previously needed clarification, or areas more likely to have changed.
Triggered — a relevant new piece of independently identifiable information can trigger a review outside the normal cycle. A trigger is not itself a finding: it still goes through the same evidence check, escalation, manual review and right of reply as anything else.

If a periodic check identifies something potentially significant, it goes through the same review and right-of-reply process as the original verification before anything is updated. Every verified retailer shows an initial verification date; a "last spot-check" date is only ever shown once this process is genuinely running and producing real dates for that retailer.