Receptor Chem
Re-analysis of the published site located 0 certificate records and wrote 0 mapped to tracked compounds. 4 strengths and 4 weaknesses recorded from the findings.
Last verified · 0 certificate records · rubric v1.10.0 · receptorchem.co.uk
PepIndex score
52.7 / 100
2.6/ 5Partly documentedData coverage
42%
Coverage is the share of scored fields we hold and corroborated for Receptor Chem. A score built on a handful of unchecked claims and a score built on forty verified data points are not the same finding, so both numbers are always published together. How coverage is computed.
Strengths
- Publishes 3 certificates for its products
- Certificates are readable publicly, without an account
- Operates under a named legal entity (Search Receptor Chem Ltd.)
- Retains historical certificates for comparison over time
Weaknesses
- Testing laboratory is not named on the certificates read
- No ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation recorded for the testing lab
- No physical postal address is published
- No independent third-party reviews located
Regulatory & enforcement record
No adverse regulatory or enforcement action on record. We record authority actions — FDA warning letters, import alerts, seizures, criminal charges — when located. Self-reported reviews are deliberately not scored, because for this market they can be manufactured.
Recorded data pointsEvery field with its source, capture date and whether we corroborated it5 verified2 claimed12 not recordedView all →Hide ↑
A tag of verified means we opened the cited source and confirmed the value; published means we recorded the vendor’s own published information, taken at face value. Both count in full; only a value with no checkable source earns nothing. Fields older than 90 days are marked stale.
Testing
- Testing laboratory
- Not recordedNot recorded
- ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Certificate granularity
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Certificate accessibility
- publicVerified1 Aug 2026editorial checkCertificates were fetched without passing any gate. Evidence: “Certificates were fetched without passing any gate.”
- Labeled vs. actual mg published
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Historical certificates retained
- YesVerified1 Aug 2026editorial checkSuperseded certificates remain reachable, so consistency across lots can be checked. Evidence: “3 certificate documents reachable across 0 current lots, so superseded certificates remain available.”
Business
- Website
- https://receptorchem.co.ukVerified1 Aug 2026sourceConfirmed reachable by the analysis run. Evidence: “Origin resolved and fetched: https://receptorchem.co.uk”
- Legal entity
- Search Receptor Chem Ltd.Published1 Aug 2026sourceEntity name as published by the vendor. Not checked against a corporate registry. Evidence: “…ation Centre Howard Road Stanmore, London HA7 1GB United Kingdom +44 7366997493 Search Receptor Chem Ltd. All Rights Reserved Mobile version: Enabled Back to to…”
- Country
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Physical address
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Contact channels
- Email (info@receptorchem.co.uk)Published1 Aug 2026sourceContact routes published by the vendor. Not tested for a reply, so recorded as published rather than reachable. Evidence: “info@receptorchem.co.uk”
Commercial
- Pricing
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Payment methods
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Guarantee / reship policy
- Case by caseVerified1 Aug 2026sourceA replacement is offered but the published policy reserves discretion to deny claims. Evidence: “…or issuance of refund in case the funds have been collected. Receptor Chem has sole discretion over the one-time refund per household policy determined through…”
Track record
- Independent reviews located
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Mean sentiment (0–5)
- Not recordedNot recorded
- Complaint pattern
- Not recordedNot recorded
Certificate recordsLot-level results with labeled versus assayed mass0 lotsView all →Hide ↑
Discrepancy is computed as the absolute difference between labeled and assayed mass, divided by the labeled mass. A vendor-published certificate is a claim; only an independently commissioned assay is treated as corroboration.
No certificate records are indexed. Either none are published, or those published could not be read without an account.
Compounds carried
No catalogue recorded yet — we have not captured a listing, a price or a certificate that tells us which compounds Receptor Chem sells.
How this score was calculatedEvery signal, its weight and the arithmetic — reconstructable by handrubric v1.10.0View calculation →Hide ↑
Each criterion is scored out of 100 over the signals we could assess, then weighted into the overall figure. Within a criterion, a signal contributes weight × merit × credit: merit is how good the recorded value is, credit is what its provenance earns — 1.00 for a value with a checkable source, 0 for a value recorded without one. A missing signal counts as a partial gap — half its weight — so a vendor that publishes what others leave blank scores higher, while a blank still costs; a value recorded without a source counts in full and earns nothing, so omitting one can never raise a score. A criterion with no data at all — track record when no independent reviews are locatable — is set aside and the remaining weights renormalised; the coverage figure, shown alongside, reports how complete the assessment is.
Testing transparency
36.4 / 100 · weight 26% → 11.8
Is the testing lab named? Is it ISO/IEC 17025 accredited? Are certificates of analysis lot-specific, and can anyone read them without an account?
| Signal | Recorded value | Provenance | Weight | Merit | Credit | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Testing lab is namedNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 1 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 1 |
| Lab holds ISO/IEC 17025 accreditationNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 4 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 4 |
| Certificate granularityNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 3 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 3 |
| Certificates readable without an accountAnyone, including us, can read the certificates without registering. | PublicCertificates were fetched without passing any gate. Evidence: “Certificates were fetched without passing any gate.” | Verified1 Aug 2026 | 4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4.00 / 4 |
| Recognised testing laboratoryNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 6 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 6 |
| Testing transparency subtotal · coverage 22% | 4.00 / 18 | |||||
Documentation depth
50 / 100 · weight 22% → 13.8
Does the vendor publish labeled-versus-actual milligram figures, retain historical certificates, and how large are the discrepancies we can measure?
| Signal | Recorded value | Provenance | Weight | Merit | Credit | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labeled vs. actual mg publishedNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 1 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 1 |
| Historical certificates retainedPast certificates remain accessible, so consistency over time can be checked. | RetainedSuperseded certificates remain reachable, so consistency across lots can be checked. Evidence: “3 certificate documents reachable across 0 current lots, so superseded certificates remain available.” | Verified1 Aug 2026 | 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 / 3 |
| Certificates the vendor publishes3 certificates located; full credit at six. | 3 publishedCount of per-lot certificates the vendor publishes that the run located, readable or image scan. Evidence: “3 distinct certificate documents were reached and confirmed published during the run.” | Verified1 Aug 2026 | 7 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 3.50 / 7 |
| Labeled vs. actual discrepancyNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 1 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 1 |
| Certificate recencyNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 4 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 4 |
| Documentation depth subtotal · coverage 63% | 6.50 / 16 | |||||
Price & value
Not assessed — excluded from the score
How the vendor’s per-milligram prices for a standard basket of common compounds compare to the market. Priced below the peer median scores higher; well above it scores lower. An overpriced vendor cannot outrank a comparably documented, better-priced one.
| Signal | Recorded value | Provenance | Weight | Merit | Credit | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price vs market ($/mg)Not recorded. | — | Not recorded | 10 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 10 |
| Price & value subtotal · coverage 0% | 0.00 / 10 | |||||
Track record
100 / 100 · weight 12% → 15
Adverse regulatory or enforcement action on record — warning letters, import alerts, seizures, criminal charges. Authority-issued and publicly verifiable. Self-reported reviews are deliberately not scored: for this market they can be manufactured.
| Signal | Recorded value | Provenance | Weight | Merit | Credit | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory & enforcement recordNo adverse regulatory or enforcement action on record. Authority actions — warning letters, import alerts, seizures, criminal charges — are recorded here when located; self-reported reviews are deliberately not scored, because for this market they can be manufactured. | None on record | Verified9 Sept 2026 | 10 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 10.00 / 10 |
| Track record subtotal · coverage 100% | 10.00 / 10 | |||||
Business transparency
66.7 / 100 · weight 12% → 10
Is a legal entity named, is there a physical address, and can the vendor be reached?
| Signal | Recorded value | Provenance | Weight | Merit | Credit | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Named legal entityA registered entity is named, so there is someone to hold responsible. | Search Receptor Chem Ltd.Entity name as published by the vendor. Not checked against a corporate registry. Evidence: “…ation Centre Howard Road Stanmore, London HA7 1GB United Kingdom +44 7366997493 Search Receptor Chem Ltd. All Rights Reserved Mobile version: Enabled Back to to…” | Published1 Aug 2026 · source | 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 / 3 |
| Physical address publishedNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 2 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 2 |
| Contact channelsDistinct contact routes we could identify. Full credit at two. | Email (info@receptorchem.co.uk)Contact routes published by the vendor. Not tested for a reply, so recorded as published rather than reachable. Evidence: “info@receptorchem.co.uk” | Published1 Aug 2026 · source | 2 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.00 / 2 |
| Business transparency subtotal · coverage 71% | 4.00 / 7 | |||||
Commercial clarity
21.4 / 100 · weight 8% → 2.1
Is pricing visible without an account, is there a stated guarantee or reship policy, and are payment methods disclosed?
| Signal | Recorded value | Provenance | Weight | Merit | Credit | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing visible without an accountNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 4 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 4 |
| Guarantee / reship policyWhether the published policy states an outcome in advance or leaves it to discretion. | Case by caseA replacement is offered but the published policy reserves discretion to deny claims. Evidence: “…or issuance of refund in case the funds have been collected. Receptor Chem has sole discretion over the one-time refund per household policy determined through…” | Verified1 Aug 2026 · source | 3 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 1.50 / 3 |
| Payment methods disclosedNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 1 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 1 |
| Payment offers buyer recourseNot recorded. | — | Not recorded | 3 | 0.00 | not recorded | 0.00 / 3 |
| Commercial clarity subtotal · coverage 27% | 1.50 / 11 | |||||
Total
| Criterion | Subscore | Weight | Contribution | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Testing transparency | 36.4 | 26% | 11.8 | 22% |
| Documentation depth | 50 | 22% | 13.8 | 63% |
| Price & value | — | 20% | excluded | 0% |
| Track record | 100 | 12% | 15 | 100% |
| Business transparency | 66.7 | 12% | 10 | 71% |
| Commercial clarity | 21.4 | 8% | 2.1 | 27% |
| Computed score | 100% | 52.7 | 42% |
Rubric v1.10.0 · 5 verified, 2 claimed, 0 unsourced, 12 not recorded, 0 stale of 19 scored signals
Community
Reviews
Reader reviews are community context only — they are never part of Receptor Chem’s computed PepIndex score, which is built from evidence alone.
No reviews yet. .