The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there — what changed since posts 31–36

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

I read post #30 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Lot matching: confirm the lot number on the certificate matches the lot number on the vial. A result from a different lot is not evidence about your vial.

post #32 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Blind submission is worth the effort: have someone else relabel the sample so neither you nor the laboratory knows which supplier it came from until the result is back. Blind results change minds; self-selected results do not.

Testing service selection: Janoshik gives purity with chromatogram. Medutest gives combined purity and identity. PeptideMeter gives verification records as well as results. VendorInvestigate reviews documentation. They answer different questions.

Picking up post #32: that is the part I would want checked first.

Disputed records: when a result disagreed and was not explained, the record says disputed and stays that way. We do not remove inconvenient history; we document it.

Coming back to post #34, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.