Public COA audit

SLU-PP-332 · GW-501516

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)
99.24%

Scored poorly because audit signals point to fabrication or reused paperwork, limited panel coverage (2/7), 2 critical findings, and notable note: "Inconsistent batch/lot numbers across pages". 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
SHREDX-0001
Identity method
LC-MS with UV detection
Sample date
2024-12-27
Issue date
2025-01-04

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).

    SLU-PP-332 / GW-501516 / AOD-9604

  • Purity

    Tested · passed · core

    Reported purity percentage for the analyte.

    99.24% / 99.03% / 100%

  • 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.

  • Inconsistent batch/lot numbers across pages

    Page 1 shows SHREDX-0001, pages 2-3 show SHRED-0001 for different compounds, suggesting these are separate samples but all share COA #10020 and security key BIOLABS2010

  • Multiple compounds under single COA number

    Three different compounds (SLU-PP-332, GW-501516, AOD9604) all share identical COA #10020 and security key BIOLABS2010, which is highly irregular for independent testing

  • Unit inconsistency on page 2

    Page 2 shows Quantity specification as 5000mcg but result as 4892mg (should be mcg), a 1000x unit error

  • 100% purity claim for peptide

    Page 3 reports exactly 100% purity for AOD9604, which is extremely rare for peptides and typically indicates rounding or measurement limitations rather than true absolute purity

  • Generic lab branding and contact

    BioRegen presents as generic independent testing lab with minimal identifying information; verification URL provided but authenticity cannot be confirmed from document alone

  • Limited testing scope

    Only identity and purity testing performed; no heavy metals, microbial, endotoxin, sterility, or solvent/water testing documented

  • Capsule appearance notation

    All three pages list appearance as 'White powder (Capsule)' which is unusual phrasing - typically COAs test raw material or finished product, not both simultaneously

Timing & next steps

Practical follow-ups based on document age and gaps.

  • coa age

    This COA was issued over a year ago (609 days) — consider whether a retest is warranted for this batch.

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.