All fourteen score 100 on track record, and nine of the twelve whose domain registration could be read registered it in 2026. Track record in this rubric is the absence of an adverse authority action on file, sourced from regulators rather than reviews, because a review can be manufactured and a warning letter cannot; on that criterion a vendor with no history scores the same as one with ten clean years. Every other criterion is a snapshot too: the certificates, the address, the laboratory and the prices were all in place on the day each site was read, and a snapshot cannot tell a seller that has been careful for years from one that has been careful for a launch.
Rubric v1.12.0 answers that with time rather than judgement. The weighted criteria give an evidence score; for every vendor published from 30 Oct 2026, the published score multiplies it by a tenure factor that is 70% on the day a profile is published and rises in a straight line to 100% after 120 days listed. The 57 vendors already on the board were admitted under the earlier rubric and keep their full evidence scores; the rule does not reach back to move numbers that were already published. That is why Quanta Nova, with the highest evidence score on the board at 95.4, publishes at 66.8 and rank 23, behind Origin Labs at 89.1, whose record has been under observation for 72 days. Nothing in the fourteen vendors’ records is discounted; what is withheld is the credit for having held up, which only the calendar can grant. The factor reads only how long this index has had a vendor under observation, not reviews, sales or a domain’s age, each of which can be bought. Lotus Peptide’s domain dates from January 2022 and Glow Peptides’ from June 2024; the registration dates on each card are there for a reader who wants them, but they do not move a score.
Two questions are open, and the record says so rather than deciding them quietly. First, Vortex Research’s ILS certificates and three documents on Source Research’s site are laboratory reports issued to a wholesale supplier, not to the vendor, for a batch the vendor states it stocks. They are real third-party reports of a real batch; they are not certificates the vendor commissioned for its own lot. The index currently holds three such Vortex records and two Source Research records that predate this review, and has not added the five further Vortex summaries read this month. Second, a Finnrick Analytics report on Source Research’s site shows a 10 mg BPC-157 sample at 8.26 mg but names no client, so it is not attributed to the vendor. Both are stated on the cards above and will be resolved in the methodology, not in a footnote.
Two laboratory findings also belong to the vendors to answer. Glow Peptides’ copy of tesamorelin accession 2602060228 prints a purity of 99.311% where the laboratory’s own copy prints 97.311%; the laboratory’s figure is the one recorded. And Luv Aminos’ lot RT-10-002 assays 21.13 mg against a 10 mg label on both copies, which is either a labelling error or a 20 mg vial tested under the wrong product name. Neither has yet been put to the vendor.