Purity, labels, and what a COA cannot say
A certificate can support identity. It cannot bless a use.
Three different problems
Chemical identity asks whether the vial contains the molecule on the label. Purity asks how much of the mass is that molecule rather than leftovers from synthesis. Sterility asks whether microbes or endotoxin are present. A compound can pass the first, look decent on the second, and fail the third.
Aggregation is a fourth problem peptides actually have. Chains stick to each other. The solution can stay clear while the material is no longer the monomer someone studied. Visible particles are a reason to stop. A clear solution is not evidence of sterility or of the right species in solution.
What a COA is
A credible certificate reports a lot number, a method, and a result: often chromatography for purity and a mass for identity. It documents what that lab found on that lot. It does not, by itself, prove who made it, that every vial in the box matches, that it is sterile, or that it is clinically suitable.
Supplier language about freezing, “research use only,” and a 28-day window is marketing or habit unless a stability study of that formulation says so. Peptarium’s handling page refuses the universal version of those rules on purpose.
Names that hide a second molecule
TB-500 is used for full-length thymosin β4 and for a short fragment. Those masses are not close. CJC-1295 with a drug-affinity complex, CJC-1295 without it, and modified GRF(1-29) are not one chemical; the FDA has a document on the naming mess. GHK-Cu in a topical cosmetic is not GHK-Cu in an injected solution.
If the certificate and the nickname disagree, the certificate is the one that can be checked. The nickname cannot.
Sources for the named trials and approvals live on the compound pages and in the evidence explorer. This essay does not add new numbers.