Dr.BariatricHTX 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.

paul_denver 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…

Vendor reputation tracking for vendor vetting: I maintain a personal spreadsheet with every order I've placed — date, vendor, batch number, Janoshik result, personal efficacy assessment (1-5 scale), and any issues.

After 18 orders across 3 vendors: average purity 97.2%, zero sterility concerns, 1 shipping issues (all resolved). This data gives me confidence in my current source and documentation if issues arise.

I encourage everyone to track their orders systematically. Community data aggregation makes us all safer.

VendorMark said:

I disagree that testing history is decisive.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The trade-off is reversibility against privacy and there is no option that gives you both. Card payments are reversible and disclose the most; crypto discloses least and is irreversible, which is precisely why pressure toward it is a warning sign when it comes from a seller rather than a buyer. Escrow only means anything where the escrow agent is independent of both parties, which is rarely the case in practice.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

How people are distinguishing a supplier having a bad batch from a supplier on the way out?

Reporting back.

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.