1. Define the question
We start with a narrow, answerable question. “Does this dated report appear to match this disclosed lot?” is reviewable. “Is this vendor good?” is too broad until it is broken into evidence categories.
2. Preserve the source trail
Every material claim should connect to a source record with a title, publisher, URL, publication or retrieval date, source type, and relevant excerpt or note. Source claims remain distinct from our interpretation.
3. Match evidence to the claim
Different documents answer different questions. A chromatogram may support a purity observation under its method. It does not, by itself, establish identity, quantity, sterility, clinical benefit, or safety.
4. Record limitations
Missing chain of custody, unclear lot matching, incomplete methods, conflicts of interest, and stale evidence stay visible. Unknown is a valid finding; it is not treated as zero or quietly filled in.
5. Use criterion-level outcomes
Each criterion receives its own status, rationale, provenance, sources, date, and limitations. Verified contributes full evidence credit, partially verified contributes partial credit, and a documented potential concern contributes no credit. Not verified, not tested, and not applicable remain unscored.
How summary scores work
A summary percentage is shown only when at least one criterion has enough evidence to score. Every percentage appears with coverage, such as “6 of 12 criteria scored.” Unknown and untested criteria stay visible and cannot silently lower or inflate the percentage.
6. Identify evidence provenance
Every important finding distinguishes vendor-provided evidence, third-party laboratory evidence, public records, and evidence PeptidesReview independently obtained. Vendor-provided material is never presented as independent validation.
7. Review and revise
Material pages carry a review date and editorial status. Corrections identify what changed and when. Method changes receive a new version rather than rewriting the historical standard.
What this framework does not do
It does not provide medical advice, establish product safety, recommend human use, or replace professional care. It helps readers understand the scope and quality of available information.