When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retraction

When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retraction — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.

I would like to talk about documentation quality as a signal, separately from product quality.

Across the certificates I have collected, the variation in what is disclosed is much larger than the variation in the purity figures. Some name the analytical procedure; some give a number and a signature.

My hypothesis is that disclosure correlates with process control, and I would like to know whether the people who audit paperwork for a living think that is naive.

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.

Unresponsiveness: a supplier that does not reply to reasonable requests for documentation or clarification is showing you something about how they operate.

I read post #13 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Anonymity: a supplier that will not disclose legal name, address, or responsible person is not operating in a way that allows accountability.

Picking up post #18: that is the part I would want checked first.

Pricing patterns: unusually low prices for what are otherwise consistent with market rates might indicate lower quality, stolen goods, or a scam. Unusually high prices without justification raise different flags.

Coming back to post #31, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.