Source of VendorInvestigate

{{Infobox service | name = VendorInvestigate | subtitle = Documentary review service | image = supply-map.svg | Type = Documentary and supply-chain review | Unit of record = A supplier and its documentation | Not = An analytical laboratory }} '''VendorInvestigate''' is a review service that examines supplier documentation, corporate registration and supply-chain claims. Unlike [[Janoshik Analytical]] and [[Medutest]], it does not perform analytical determinations; unlike [[PeptideMeter]], it does not aggregate test results into statistics. Its object of study is the paperwork and the provenance rather than the material.{{r|reports}} Documentary review answers questions that analysis cannot. Whether a [[Batch number|batch number]] on a vial corresponds to a record the supplier can produce, whether a claimed certification exists and is current, whether an organisation is registered where it says it is — none of these is determinable by injecting a sample onto a column.{{r|reports}} It also cannot answer questions that analysis can. A complete and internally consistent document set is not evidence that the material matches it. The two kinds of evidence are complementary and neither substitutes for the other. == What documentary review examines == The typical scope covers corporate identity and registration, the existence and currency of claimed certifications, the internal consistency of certificates against the lots and dates they name, and the correspondence between what a catalogue lists and what can actually be ordered.{{r|reports}} Internal consistency is the most productive of these. A [[Certificate of analysis|certificate]] carries several fields that must agree with each other and with the vial: the lot identifier, the manufacture and retest dates, the method conditions, and the reported determinations. A certificate whose stated method could not produce the reported figure, or whose retest date precedes its manufacture date, is defective on its face without any laboratory work at all.{{r|usp1503}} Registration and certification claims are checkable against public registers. A claimed [[Good manufacturing practice|GMP]] certification names an issuing body, a scope and a validity period, and a claim without those particulars is not checkable — which is itself an observation about the claim.{{r|iso9001}} == What it cannot establish == Documentary review is silent on the material. A supplier with impeccable paperwork may ship material that does not match it, and a supplier with thin paperwork may ship excellent material. The two variables are not independent in practice, but neither determines the other.{{r|reports}} It is also silent on lot-to-lot consistency, which requires repeated analysis over time, and on [[Underfilling|fill mass]], which requires weighing. A review that finds nothing wrong is evidence of nothing wrong in the documents examined. The failure mode most relevant here is [[Test report forgery|forgery]]. A document that has been fabricated to be internally consistent will pass consistency checking, and detecting it requires confirmation with the issuing laboratory rather than inspection of the document, and whether that is possible depends on the laboratory's own reporting practice.{{r|iso17025}} Documentary review can raise the cost of forgery; it cannot eliminate it. == Use on this wiki == Reports from this service, like those from the analytical laboratories, reach this wiki through contributor submission. They are cited with attribution and are not treated as establishing facts about an organisation beyond what the document itself asserts.{{r|reports}} | Question | Answered by | |---|---| | Is the material what it claims to be? | Analytical identity determination | | How much is in the vial? | [[Peptide content]], water and fill mass | | Does the paperwork hang together? | Documentary review | | Is the organisation what it claims to be? | Documentary review | | Does the lot represent the supplier's output? | Repeated [[Blind sampling]] sampling over time | No single service answers more than a couple of rows of that table, which is the practical reason this wiki refers to four of them rather than one. == References == {{reflist}} <ref name="reports">PeptidePedia Wiki community test-report tally, 2024–2026 (self-reported; see [[Project:Sourcing_guidelines]]).</ref> <ref name="iso9001">ISO 9001:2015, ''Quality management systems — Requirements''.</ref> <ref name="usp1503">United States Pharmacopeia, General Chapter <1503>, ''Quality Attributes of Synthetic Peptide Drug Substances''.</ref> <ref name="iso17025">ISO/IEC 17025:2017, ''General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories''.</ref> == See also == * [[Third-party testing]] * [[Janoshik Analytical]] * [[Medutest]] * [[PeptideMeter]] * [[Test report forgery]] * [[Lot traceability]] {{DEFAULTSORT:VendorInvestigate}} [[Category:Independent testing services]] [[Category:Testing methodology]] [[Category:Traceability]]