Public COA audit

Reta · GLP RT

Audited September 5, 2026

Evidence suggests fabrication

Multiple signals on this document conflict with known lab formats or verification patterns.

Legitimacy
15
Confidence
92%
Panels
2/7
Purity (printed)
99.887%

Scored poorly because audit signals point to fabrication or reused paperwork, limited panel coverage (2/7), 2 critical findings, and notable note: "Unverifiable testing laboratory". To improve: replace this file with an original lab certificate that verifies on the lab portal and include identity, purity, and endotoxin at minimum.

Document details

Fields extracted from the certificate — not order or payment data.

Batch / lot
665394
Identity method
HPLC with UV Detection Coupled with Mass Spectrometry
Sample date
2026-04-06
Issue date
2026-04-07

Original certificate

Embedded copy of the stored COA PDF or image. Download it for your records — PeptIQ’s audit is separate from the lab document itself.

Loading original certificate…

7-panel checklist

Had data + good, had data + bad, reported without pass/fail, or missing. Missing lowers thoroughness — you decide whether that panel matters; PeptIQ’s score still factors coverage.

2 of 7 present · 2 passed · 0 failed · 0 reported · 5 missing

Missing is a thoroughness gap — not automatically bad. PeptIQ’s legitimacy score still weighs panel coverage; you can down-weight panels that don’t matter for your use case.

  • Identity

    Tested · passed · core

    Compound identity confirmed (e.g. HPLC, mass spec).

    GLP RT confirmed by mass spectrometry

  • Purity

    Tested · passed · core

    Reported purity percentage for the analyte.

    99.887%

  • Heavy metals

    Not on this certificate file

    Lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, or similar limits.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

  • Microbial

    Not on this certificate file

    Bioburden / microbial limits testing.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

  • Endotoxin

    Not on this certificate file · core

    LAL or chromogenic endotoxin assay.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

  • Sterility

    Not on this certificate file

    Sterility testing where applicable.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

  • Residual solvent / water

    Not on this certificate file

    Residual solvents or water content limits.

    No evidence on this file. Vendors sometimes publish separate purity and endotoxin reports for the same lot — check the brand page before treating this as “never tested.”

How to read this

Had data · good

Panel present with a pass (or clear acceptance).

Had data · bad

Panel present with a fail — a concrete quality signal.

Had data · unclear

Value reported without an explicit pass/fail mark.

Missing on this file

Not on this certificate file. Lowers file thoroughness; a sibling endotoxin/purity report for the same lot may still exist. PeptIQ’s score still factors coverage.

Findings

Evidence-linked observations from this audit.

  • Unverifiable testing laboratory

    Freedom Diagnostics and FreedomDiagnosticsTesting.com do not appear in established databases of analytical testing laboratories. The domain shows no active website or verifiable business presence. The email [email protected] cannot be independently verified.

  • Unprofessional document quality

    Multiple formatting issues: inconsistent spacing, 'TEST TEST TEST' placeholder text visible in header, generic layout inconsistent with established analytical labs, stock photo-quality vial image rather than actual sample documentation.

  • Vague compound identification

    Product listed as 'Reta 10mg' with identity 'GLP RT' but no full chemical name, CAS number, molecular formula, or expected molecular weight provided. Mass spec shows peaks but no interpretation or comparison to theoretical values.

  • Minimal analyst credentials

    Signatory 'Alex Johnson, Principal Chemist' provided with no professional credentials, certifications, or verifiable background. No laboratory accreditation mentioned (ISO 17025, GMP, etc.).

  • Limited testing scope

    Only purity and identity testing performed. No safety panels (endotoxin, heavy metals, microbial, sterility, residual solvents) which are standard for research-grade peptides intended for biological use.

  • Generic disclaimer language

    Disclaimer text appears boilerplate and does not reference specific laboratory SOPs, quality systems, or regulatory frameworks typical of legitimate analytical labs.

  • Dates within acceptable range

    Received 2026-04-06, reported 2026-04-07 (1-day turnaround). Both dates are prior to current date 2026-09-05.

PeptIQ COA reports analyze document content and publicly verifiable lab signals. They are educational and not a guarantee of product quality, legality, or safety. Always consult a qualified professional before making health decisions. We never publish purchase prices, shipping details, or uploader identity.