Missing, inaccessible, or contradicted
Transparent rubric
Submit documentationRSES v1.0 methodology
RSES keeps documentation strength, sampling independence, numerical score, and confidence separate. Missing evidence scores zero but remains visibly different from a confirmed analytical failure.
RSES scope. RSES evaluates publicly available research-supplier documentation. It does not guarantee product identity, safety, sterility, future-lot consistency, regulatory compliance, or suitability for human use. Research-use-only labeling is not a safety finding.
Nine weighted documentation categories
Each category is rated 0–5. Weighted points equal category weight × rating ÷ 5. The displayed 0.0–10.0 RSES is total points ÷ 10, rounded to one decimal. The unrounded result is retained in score history.
Analytical evidence28%
Lot traceability and sampling18%
Laboratory and method credibility14%
Contamination controls12%
Cross-lot consistency8%
Corporate transparency7%
Catalog accuracy5%
Corrective-action record4%
Community signal4%
Evidence is labeled before it is scored
Vendor marketing statement without supporting documentation
Vendor document that cannot be tied to the current lot
Named-laboratory document with a matched lot and independently verifiable report
Independently purchased or user-submitted sample with authenticated testing
Repeated controlled or blind chain-of-custody testing
Visible labels include [Marketing claim], [Unverified], [Anecdote], [Independent laboratory report], and [Controlled sample]. Testimonials and efficacy reports are anecdotes and cannot count as analytical evidence.
Critical documentation failures limit qualification
4.9No lot-specific mass-spectrometry identity evidence
3.9Unresolved sequence, CAS-number, or molecular-weight error
3.9Laboratory cannot authenticate a report
2.0Reused, materially altered, or fabricated CoA
Confidence CNo net-content measurement
Application 5.9No endotoxin result for cell-research qualification
Application 5.9No sterility or bioburden result where aseptic material is required
2.9Unresolved identity failure from an independently obtained sample
Every applied cap must cite the evidence item that triggered it. Application-specific contamination caps do not silently rewrite the general score.
Confidence is calculated independently
At least 80% of weighted evidence is E3+, including meaningful E4/E5 sampling.
At least 60% is E3+, with multiple lots represented.
At least 40% is supported, but evidence is predominantly vendor-selected.
20–39% documentation coverage.
Under 20% or effectively unverified.
Research qualification—not a safety or shopping scale
8.5–10.0Strong research qualification package; incoming-lot verification still required
7.0–8.4Conditional qualification
5.0–6.9Exploratory research only; independent incoming QC necessary
3.0–4.9Insufficiently qualified
0.0–2.9Reject from research shortlist
RSES scope. RSES evaluates publicly available research-supplier documentation. It does not guarantee product identity, safety, sterility, future-lot consistency, regulatory compliance, or suitability for human use. Research-use-only labeling is not a safety finding.