andrew_nyc said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Following on from andrew_nyc — and this may be the naive question:
What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsdan_philly said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
dan_philly said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency. Consistency means separate batches, separately commissioned, over months.