Dr.KarenChen said:

The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product.

I disagree that testing history is decisive. It tells you what a supplier did when they were being watched. Continuity of behaviour under stress — a late shipment, a failed test, a complaint — is more predictive than any run of good results.

andrew_nyc said:

Six orders from the same supplier over eight months, every one independently tested, and the consistency is the part worth reporting rather than any…

Shipping damage protocol for vendor vetting orders: if your package arrives with visible damage, temperature excursion, or broken vials:

• Photograph EVERYTHING before discarding packaging
• Note the temperature of the cold pack (liquid = possibly too warm)
• Contact the vendor within 24 hours with photos
• Request a replacement shipment or refund
• Do NOT use potentially compromised medication

Reputable vendors will replace damaged shipments without argument. If they push back, that's a red flag about the vendor.

sarah.morrison said:

I disagree that testing history is decisive.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

Happy to go further on any of that.

One thing that is still open after Dr.PainCLE’s answer:

What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Went back through my own correspondence with an earlier supplier and the warning signs were all there in the replies, weeks before the quality changed. I was reading the product and not the behaviour.