How to Submit Supplier Intelligence
Your field reports strengthen our collective intelligence. Here's how to document and submit actionable supplier data that helps the entire community make informed decisions.
What Intelligence We Need
Intelligence gathering isn't about opinions. It's about verifiable data that helps researchers assess supplier reliability, product quality, and operational security. Every submission adds to our collective knowledge base, creating a more complete picture of the supplier landscape.
Priority Intelligence Requirements
Product Quality Data
- COA verification results: Lab test data comparing vendor claims to actual analysis
- Visual inspection findings: Physical characteristics, packaging quality, contamination indicators
- Reconstitution behavior: Dissolution rates, clarity, particulate matter, pH observations
- Stability data: Storage conditions, degradation observations, shelf life experiences
- Batch consistency: Variations between orders from the same supplier
Operational Security Intelligence
- Shipping practices: Stealth methods, packaging discretion, customs success rates
- Payment security: Methods offered, transaction safety, financial exposure risks
- Data handling: Privacy practices, information retention policies, security incidents
- Communication security: Encrypted channels offered, metadata protection, operational security awareness
- Legal compliance: Regulatory adherence, licensing status, documentation practices
Transaction Intelligence
- Order processing: Confirmation times, order accuracy, fulfillment speed
- Shipping timelines: Processing to delivery timeframes by destination
- Customer service responsiveness: Response times, problem resolution effectiveness
- Pricing dynamics: Price changes, bulk discounts, promotional patterns
- Stock reliability: Inventory accuracy, backorder frequency, restock timelines
Risk Indicators
- Red flags observed: Suspicious behavior, inconsistent information, trust violations
- Quality failures: Contamination, mislabeling, substandard products
- Service failures: Non-delivery, ghosting, unresolved disputes
- Security compromises: Data breaches, privacy violations, exposure incidents
- Operational changes: Ownership transitions, website changes, contact information shifts
The most valuable intelligence combines multiple data points. A single COA with shipping timeline data and customer service observations provides more actionable intelligence than isolated reports.
Submission Guidelines
Quality intelligence follows structured reporting protocols. These guidelines ensure your submissions are actionable, verifiable, and valuable to the community.
Core Reporting Principles
Be Specific and Measurable
Poor: "Shipping was slow"
Good: "Order placed March 15, shipped March 22, delivered April 3. Total time: 19 days to US East Coast."
Provide exact dates, quantities, measurements, and observations. Vague reports lack utility.
Separate Fact from Assessment
Fact: "Product arrived with broken seal on vial"
Assessment: "Broken seal indicates potential contamination risk"
Distinguish between what you observed and what you concluded. Both are valuable, but clarity matters.
Include Context
Data without context loses value. Include:
- Order date and delivery date
- Product name, quantity, and batch number
- Destination region (country/region level sufficient)
- Payment method used
- Any special circumstances (promotional period, first order, bulk purchase)
Document Everything
Photographic evidence, screenshots of communications, test results, and packaging details substantially increase report credibility. Documentation transforms anecdotes into intelligence.
Report Both Positive and Negative
Confirmation of supplier reliability is as valuable as exposure of problems. Balanced reporting builds comprehensive supplier profiles.
Submission Format Requirements
Structure your submissions using this format:
Supplier Name: [Exact name as they present themselves]
Website/Contact: [URL or contact method]
Report Date: [When you're submitting this intelligence]
Experience Timeframe: [Order date through delivery/resolution]
Product(s): [Specific peptides or compounds ordered]
Order Details: [Quantity, batch numbers, cost]
Observations: [Detailed factual observations organized by category]
Supporting Evidence: [Photos, test results, correspondence samples]
Assessment: [Your evaluation of the experience]
This structure ensures consistency across submissions and makes intelligence easy to analyze and cross-reference.
How to Document Your Experience
Good documentation starts at order placement, not when problems arise. Systematic documentation practices create valuable intelligence regardless of outcome.
Order Placement Phase
- Screenshot the order confirmation: Capture date, products, quantities, total cost, and order number
- Save all communications: Email confirmations, chat transcripts, support tickets
- Record payment details: Method used, transaction ID, amount charged (excluding sensitive payment credentials)
- Note website observations: SSL certificate status, professional presentation, contact information availability
- Document promises made: Shipping timeframes, product specifications, guarantees offered
Shipping Phase
- Track timeline milestones: Order confirmation, payment processing, shipment notification, tracking updates, delivery
- Evaluate packaging: Discretion level, protective materials, temperature control measures, labeling accuracy
- Photograph everything: Outer packaging, inner packaging, product containers, labels, batch numbers
- Check for tampering: Seal integrity, packaging damage, signs of inspection
Product Receipt Phase
- Visual inspection: Photograph vials showing clarity, color, particulate matter, fill level
- Documentation verification: Compare received products to COA, check batch number matches
- Reconstitution testing: Document dissolution behavior, clarity post-reconstitution, unusual characteristics
- Storage compliance: Check if products arrived within temperature specifications
Laboratory Testing Phase
- Purity analysis: HPLC results, comparison to vendor COA claims
- Mass spectrometry: Molecular weight confirmation
- Contamination testing: Endotoxin levels, sterility verification
- Quantitative analysis: Actual quantity versus claimed quantity
Customer Service Interaction Phase
- Response time tracking: When you contacted them, when they responded
- Communication quality: Professionalism, knowledge level, helpfulness
- Problem resolution: How issues were handled, outcomes achieved, time to resolution
- Policy enforcement: How stated policies were applied in practice
Long-Term Monitoring
- Product stability: Degradation observations over storage time
- Repeat order comparison: Consistency across multiple purchases
- Supplier evolution: Changes in operations, pricing, or policies
- Community correlation: How your experience compares to other reports
Comprehensive documentation transforms your personal experience into community intelligence. The more detail you capture, the more valuable your contribution becomes.
COA Submission Process
Certificates of Analysis are critical intelligence assets. Vendor-provided COAs represent claims; third-party verification represents truth. Submitting verified COA data is one of the most valuable contributions you can make.
Vendor COA Submission
Even without independent testing, vendor-provided COAs offer intelligence value:
- Document the claim: Submit the COA exactly as provided by the vendor
- Include metadata: When you received it, batch number, order date, product name
- Note testing facility: Which lab allegedly performed the analysis
- Check for red flags: Missing information, unusual formatting, generic data
- Cross-reference: Compare to COAs from other batches or suppliers
Third-Party Testing Submission
Independent laboratory testing provides the highest-value intelligence:
Essential Testing Data
- Laboratory identification: Testing facility name and location
- Test date: When analysis was performed
- Methodology: Analytical methods used (HPLC, MS, etc.)
- Full results: Complete test data, not just pass/fail
- Batch traceability: Clear connection between tested product and vendor batch
Comparison Analysis
When submitting independent testing, include:
- Vendor COA claims versus actual test results
- Specific discrepancies identified
- Magnitude of variation (if purity claimed is 98% but tests at 92%, that's significant)
- Unexpected compounds or contaminants detected
- Quantitative accuracy (did 5mg actually contain 5mg?)
COA Submission Format
Submit COA intelligence using this structure:
Supplier: [Vendor name]
Product: [Peptide name and specification]
Batch Number: [As marked on product]
Order Date: [When you placed the order]
COA Type: [Vendor-provided or third-party verified]
Testing Laboratory: [Facility name if third-party]
Test Date: [When analysis was performed]
Claimed Purity: [Per vendor COA]
Actual Purity: [Per independent test, if available]
Additional Test Results: [Contamination, mass spec, quantitative analysis]
Verification Status: [Confirmed, Discrepancy, or Vendor Claim Only]
Supporting Documentation: [Attach full COA PDFs, test reports, chain of custody documentation]
Group Testing Initiatives
Individual testing is expensive. Community-funded group testing initiatives multiply intelligence gathering effectiveness:
- Coordinate with other researchers: Split costs for batch testing from common suppliers
- Submit comprehensive results: Group testing data benefits entire community
- Establish testing protocols: Standardized methodology enables comparison across submissions
- Document chain of custody: Verify tested samples represent actual vendor products
Your COA submissions build the foundation for supplier verification. Even vendor-provided COAs contribute to pattern recognition that identifies reliable suppliers and exposes fraudulent claims.
Anonymity Options
Intelligence gathering can carry risks. We provide multiple anonymity levels to protect contributors while maintaining intelligence value.
Anonymity Tiers
Full Attribution
Your name and contact information associated with the report. Highest credibility level but lowest operational security.
Appropriate for: Positive reports, public-facing researchers, situations where attribution adds credibility
Verified Anonymous
Your identity known to PeptideRecon administrators but not published. Reports marked as "verified contributor" without revealing identity.
Appropriate for: Sensitive negative reports, situations requiring balance between credibility and security
Process: Submit with identity verification to admins, publish anonymously with verification badge
Full Anonymous
No identity verification required. Submit through secure channels without revealing any identifying information.
Appropriate for: High-risk reporting, whistleblowing, situations where source protection is paramount
Trade-off: Lower automatic credibility, but reports evaluated on evidence quality rather than source reputation
Operational Security for Submissions
- Use encrypted channels: Secure communication methods for sensitive intelligence
- Strip metadata: Remove EXIF data from photos, sanitize documents of identifying information
- Use neutral language: Avoid phrases or terminology that might identify you to suppliers you're reporting on
- Consider timing: Delay submission if immediate reporting might reveal your identity through order timing correlation
- Protect transaction details: Include enough detail for verification but redact information that could identify you to the supplier
Metadata Sanitization Guide
Before submitting documentation:
- Photos: Use metadata removal tools to strip EXIF data (location, device, time)
- Screenshots: Crop out identifying information like account names, email addresses, unique order numbers
- Documents: Remove author information, edit history, organization details from PDF properties
- Communications: Redact your name, email address, account identifiers while preserving conversation content
We respect your operational security choices. Intelligence value increases with verifiability, but anonymous intelligence still contributes to pattern recognition and community awareness.
What Happens After Submission
Understanding our intelligence processing workflow helps you submit more effective reports and sets appropriate expectations for publication timelines.
Intelligence Review Process
Stage 1: Initial Intake (24-48 hours)
- Submission received and logged
- Completeness check: all required fields present
- Format validation: documentation readable and organized
- Initial credibility assessment: obvious red flags or concerns
Outcome: Accepted for review, or returned with request for additional information
Stage 2: Verification (3-7 days)
- Cross-reference with existing intelligence on same supplier
- Evidence evaluation: photos, test results, documentation assessed
- Timeline consistency check: dates and sequences validated
- Pattern analysis: does report fit known supplier behavior patterns?
- Independent corroboration: attempt to verify claims through additional sources
Outcome: Verification level assigned: Confirmed, Likely, Unverified, or Disputed
Stage 3: Integration (1-3 days)
- Intelligence added to supplier profile
- Risk ratings updated based on new data
- Timeline entries created for date-specific information
- Related reports cross-linked for pattern visibility
- Community alerts issued if significant risk identified
Outcome: Published intelligence visible in supplier profiles
Stage 4: Community Feedback (Ongoing)
- Other researchers submit corroborating or conflicting reports
- Verification level adjusted as additional evidence emerges
- Intelligence value increases as patterns become clear
- Your contribution becomes part of cumulative community knowledge
Verification Levels Explained
- Confirmed: Multiple independent sources corroborate, or high-quality evidence provided (lab tests, extensive documentation)
- Likely: Single credible source with supporting evidence, consistent with known patterns
- Unverified: Single source without corroboration, limited evidence, but no obvious reliability concerns
- Disputed: Conflicting reports exist, or report contains inconsistencies requiring additional investigation
Communication Throughout Process
We keep you informed (if you provided contact information):
- Receipt confirmation: Immediate acknowledgment of submission
- Status updates: Progress through review stages
- Clarification requests: If additional information needed
- Publication notification: When your intelligence goes live
- Impact reports: How your contribution affected supplier ratings
How Your Intelligence Is Used
Your submission becomes part of multiple intelligence products:
- Supplier profiles: Detailed history and rating calculations
- Risk assessments: Security and quality evaluation components
- Trend analysis: Identifying supplier behavior patterns over time
- Comparison tools: Enabling researchers to evaluate multiple suppliers
- Community alerts: Warnings about emerging risks or supplier changes
- Historical records: Long-term tracking of supplier evolution
Long-Term Value Creation
Intelligence gathering is cumulative. Your single report might seem minor, but combined with dozens of other submissions, patterns emerge. A supplier's first negative report is data. The fifth negative report is a pattern. The tenth is a conclusion.
Every submission strengthens the community's collective intelligence capability. You're not just sharing an experience; you're building infrastructure that protects researchers who come after you.
Your Intelligence Matters
The peptide research supply chain operates in shadows where information asymmetry benefits bad actors. Every verified report you submit tilts the balance toward transparency. Every COA you verify or expose strengthens quality standards. Every shipping experience you document helps researchers assess operational security risks.
We're not asking you to become an investigator. We're asking you to document what you already observe, submit what you already test, and share what you already know. Your normal research activities generate intelligence value—you just need to submit it.
The community's intelligence capability is only as strong as the participation rate. If 10% of researchers submit reports, we have limited visibility. If 50% participate, we achieve comprehensive coverage. At 80%, we establish community-driven quality control that forces supplier improvement.
Submit your intelligence. Document your experiences. Contribute to collective knowledge. Your reports protect other researchers. Other researchers' reports protect you.
This is how we build a community-verified, intelligence-driven approach to supplier evaluation. This is how we shift power from suppliers to researchers. This is how we improve quality and safety across the entire ecosystem.
Your next order generates intelligence. Will you submit it?