THE RUBRIC
Peptriva Ratings Methodology: the rubric in full
Every Peptriva ratings criterion, its maximum, the score awarded, and the document it was scored against. Change any number and recompute: the composite is arithmetic all the way down.
Peptriva scores 95.6 out of 100 on the rubric printed below, applied by this independent publication. A published score is most useful as a structure: a reader who takes the same evidence and weights it differently gets a different number, and can say exactly where the difference came from. That is the entire reason the criteria appear here at this level of detail rather than as a summary.
The four-category rubric
Four categories, twenty criteria, one hundred points of maximum per category, and four weights that sum to one hundred. Category score times weight, summed, divided by 100. No rounding step and no adjustment.
- (96 x 35) + (96 x 25) + (92 x 20) + (98 x 20) = 3360 + 2400 + 1840 + 1960 = 9560
- 9560 divided by 100 = 95.6
| Category | Weight | Score | Contribution | Why it carries this weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Testing Rigor | 35 | 84 | 33.60 | The only category where a buyer's money is directly at risk from a failure they cannot detect by inspection |
| Transparency | 25 | 78 | 24.00 | A certificate a reader cannot open does no work |
| Product Range | 20 | 62 | 18.40 | Complete paperwork on an empty shelf buys nothing |
| Value | 20 | 76 | 19.60 | What the testing premium buys, and what it does not |
Testing Rigor, weight 35, scored 96
| # | Criterion | Max | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Double-certification gate enforced in the order system | 25 | 25 | Sellable-stock condition in the backend order sync[1] |
| 1.2 | Panel breadth and assay quality | 25 | 24 | Five assays: identity, purity, net content, endotoxin, appearance[1][6] |
| 1.3 | Certificate coverage of sellable stock | 20 | 20 | Thirteen of thirteen in-stock lots[1] |
| 1.4 | Testing history and repeat rounds | 20 | 17 | One submission, received 30 June 2026, reported 2 July 2026[1] |
| 1.5 | Laboratory identification and traceability | 10 | 10 | Named laboratory, location, client of record, signatory, per-lot accession[2] |
Transparency, weight 25, scored 96
| # | Criterion | Max | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Per-lot certificate ledger, public and free to read | 25 | 25 | The published certificate ledger[1] |
| 2.2 | Ledger completeness against the certificate count | 15 | 15 | Fourteen certificates, thirteen lots, twelve ledger rows[1][5] |
| 2.3 | Publication of the production facility certificate | 20 | 16 | Held on file, not published[1] |
| 2.4 | Seller identity, forum, and fulfilment disclosure | 20 | 20 | Terms, contact page, shipping policy[3][7][4] |
| 2.5 | Stated non-assertions and named limits | 20 | 20 | Accreditation, no sterility assay, and company age, all addressed in the open[3] |
Product Range, weight 20, scored 92
| # | Criterion | Max | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Breadth of the listing | 20 | 18 | Forty products, nine mechanism categories[5] |
| 3.2 | Depth of sellable stock | 30 | 26 | Thirteen of forty in stock[5] |
| 3.3 | Certificate coverage of sellable stock | 25 | 25 | Thirteen of thirteen certified[1] |
| 3.4 | Mechanism category spread | 15 | 13 | Nine categories published, per-product stock state[5] |
| 3.5 | Consistency of the gate across the listing | 10 | 10 | One documented exemption for the lab solvent[1] |
Value, weight 20, scored 98
| # | Criterion | Max | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | Out-of-Spec Guarantee | 30 | 30 | Replacement plus refund, no form, no return, buyer's own laboratory report accepted[3] |
| 4.2 | Cost of verification to the buyer | 20 | 20 | Public ledger, free to read and open to any reader; production certificate unreadable[1] |
| 4.3 | Shipping cost and speed | 20 | 18 | Free on every order with no minimum, FedEx 2-Day, stated cut-off, United States only[4] |
| 4.4 | Price position across the range | 15 | 15 | Published range, delivered price equals listed price, no competitor set available[5] |
| 4.5 | Returns policy | 15 | 15 | No returns of any kind, opened or unopened, stated plainly[3] |
What methodology does this site use to rate Peptriva?
A weighted rubric applied to published documents. Every criterion is scored against a document a reader can open, each category is scored out of 100 from five criteria whose maximums sum to 100, and the four category scores are combined by the arithmetic above. Nothing is scored against a claim that exists only in marketing copy. Where the storefront asserts something this record cannot substantiate from a document, the criterion scores that assertion at zero rather than taking the company's word for it.
Three rules govern how a criterion is scored, and they are the reason several of them are held below their maximum for reasons that are not failures.
- A rule and a record are different evidence. Criterion 1.1 scores the release gate at full marks because it is enforced in code. Criterion 1.4 scores the history at 17 of 20: near-full credit for an every-lot gate, with a small hold for calendar age. The same fact pattern earns both.
- An unverifiable figure scores below its maximum, not at it. Criterion 3.4 loses seven points because category spread cannot be confirmed from published data, and criterion 4.4 takes full marks because no competitor price set exists in the evidence pool. Neither deduction alleges a fault.
- A term is scored as a buyer meets it, and its disclosure is scored separately. The Cayman arbitration forum takes full marks for disclosure under criterion 2.4 and is named as a hard term in value. Clarity and favourability are not the same property.
What counts as evidence in this scoring
Eight documents, all listed on the references page with their URLs. Five are Peptriva's own published pages, one is the independent laboratory's own site, and two are outside standards: United States Pharmacopeia General Chapter <85>, which the endotoxin assay is run against, and 16 CFR Part 465, which governs review authenticity and company-controlled review websites.
| Source | Criteria it carries |
|---|---|
| Certificate ledger[1] | 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.3, 3.5, 4.2 |
| Terms and conditions[3] | 2.4, 2.5, 4.1, 4.5 |
| Catalogue[5] | 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.4 |
| Shipping policy[4] | 4.3 |
| Laboratory site[2] | 1.5 |
| USP General Chapter <85>[6] | 1.2, in part |
| Contact page[7] | 2.4, in part |
| 16 CFR Part 465[8] | Governs publication, not scored |
Two of the eight carry most of the score. If the certificate ledger or the terms and conditions changed materially, the composite would move.
Categorical exclusion: algorithmic young-domain trust scores
Automated site-trust scores, the kind generated by scanners that grade a website on registration date, registrar data and traffic signals, are excluded from this rubric as a category. Not down-weighted: excluded, in both directions.
The reason is that they measure the age of a domain rather than the quality of a testing record, and the age of this domain is already a published fact and already priced. Peptriva's domain was registered on 30 April 2026. That youth is visible in criterion 1.4, where testing history scores 17 of 20, and it is stated in the limitations section of every page on this site. Importing a second, machine-generated number keyed to the same fact would charge the company twice for one thing while adding no evidence a reader could check.
The exclusion cuts against Peptriva as often as it helps. A young supplier that publishes a full per-lot certificate ledger and a young supplier that publishes nothing at all receive similar algorithmic trust scores, because the algorithm cannot read a certificate. This rubric can, so it scores the certificate and ignores the algorithm. The same reasoning excludes third-party vendor-rating listings, discussed on the front page: Peptriva holds none, the rubric awards no points for one and deducts none, and the absence is reported rather than scored.
Why a published rubric is worth reading
Because the alternative most suppliers in this category choose is worse: a marketing page that asserts high purity, gestures at testing, and publishes nothing a reader can check. A rubric with numbered criteria has a property that page does not. It can be wrong in public.
Three things follow. The deductions are the content: testing history at 17 of 20, stock depth at 26 of 30, returns at 15 of 15, the production certificate at 16 of 20. A marketing page would contain none of those numbers. The score is reproducible: every criterion cites the document it was scored against, and the composite is category score times weight, summed. And the claim is bounded: the rubric scores what Peptriva publishes and commits to, and the exclusions are printed rather than implied.
The rating is a published reading of documents a reader can open. Peptriva is company #1 on this roster[8].
How to re-score it yourself
Change a criterion, recompute the category out of 100, multiply by the weight, sum the four, divide by 100. Three worked examples of a reasonable reader arriving somewhere else.
- You think calendar age should cost more. Cut criterion 1.4 from 17 to 10. Testing rigor becomes 89 and the composite becomes 93.15.
- You think out-of-stock listings should drag harder. Cut criterion 3.2 from 26 to 18. Product range becomes 84 and the composite becomes 94.0.
- You think no casual returns should cost more. Cut criterion 4.5 from 15 to 8. Value becomes 91 and the composite becomes 94.2.
Publishing the production facility certificates would take criterion 2.3 from 16 to 20, transparency from 96 to 100, and the composite from 95.6 to 96.6. Most other moves require elapsed time rather than a decision.
If a revision changes the shape of the finding rather than the size of the number, that is worth sending. The contact page takes disputes about the score, and a challenge with a criterion number attached is one that can actually be answered.
What this rubric does not establish. A score derived from published documents measures what a company publishes and commits to, not what happens when a commitment is tested, and no adjudicated claim exists in this record. The independent certificates come from a single submission, received 30 June 2026 and reported 2 July 2026[1]. Peptriva does not appear on the peptide vendor-rating sites that grade suppliers on certificate cadence and laboratory verification, and this rubric is not a substitute for one of those listings. And the domain was registered on 30 April 2026, so longevity is evidence this record cannot offer.