Independent Documentation Review
Trace vendor claims back to the documents behind them.
ClaimTrace reads product pages and lab document text and produces evidence-based documentation reports. No vendor rankings. No purchase recommendations. Just what the paperwork does and does not support. File handling covers PDF metadata, text content, and SHA-256 hashing; OCR and image comparison are tracked as future work, not current capability.
0documentation fields
0report buckets
0vendor rankings
Trust Center
The credibility layer is built into the report.
A buyer should be able to see what was reviewed, which method was used, what changed, and how corrections are handled without reading a wall of text.
Public Methodology
Every report uses the same mechanical checks, versioned under Methodology v1.0.
Review methodologySample Reports
Prospects can inspect real-looking synthetic reports before paying.
Open samplesCorrection Portal
Vendors and users can submit evidence-backed corrections without private backchannels.
Submit correctionData Boundaries
No intended-use questions, no health outcome collection, and no checkout links to vendors.
View data policyClaimTrace is a documentation tool. Reports are not safety assessments, quality assessments, legal determinations, vendor rankings, or purchase recommendations.
Evidence Workflow
From scattered paperwork to a correction-ready report.
COA file, page copy, lot number, and PDF metadata.
Compare claims, lots, labs, methods, and historical snapshots.
Preserve report IDs, evidence hashes, vendor responses, and changes.
Capture
Collect source material without asking users for medical-use details: COA file, pasted page text, lot number, and file hash. PDF text and metadata are read; image OCR is not yet implemented.
Quick Check
Upload the paperwork. Get the first-pass report.
Start with a URL and one document. Add extra detail only if you have it.
Report Preview
Sample reports that prove the product before the sales call.
These are synthetic examples, but they show the exact artifact customers should expect: scope, evidence IDs, findings, limitations, and correction paths.
CTR-DEMO-BPC16/13 fields
Purity Claim Reconciliation
Compares public-page percentage language against a demo COA and archived page copy.
CTR-DEMO-TB508/13 fields
COA Completeness Review
Shows what a cleaner report looks like when fewer conflicts are detected.
CTR-DEMO-GHK77/13 fields
Undefined Term Audit
Flags unsupported wording without calling the vendor fraudulent or unsafe.
Sample Report
ApexResearchPeptides.com - BPC-157 5mg
6/13documentation fields present
Matches Found
- Lot number appears on page and COA.
- Named testing lab appears on COA.
Mismatches
- Page says 99%+ purity; COA reports 98.7%.
Missing Documentation
- No sterility or endotoxin documentation provided.
- No public business entity name detected.
Could Not Verify
- COA authenticity not confirmed with named lab.
- Product itself was not tested.
Reports Workspace
Saved reports become the documentation database.
The current build stores everything locally in your browser. In the production app, this becomes authenticated report history, immutable evidence records, vendor pages, product pages, and monitoring alerts.
Launch readiness
Archive health
Customer trust workflow
Upload
Extract
Reconcile
Archive
Correct
Report history
Saved report IDs, vendors, products, completeness counts, and bucket totals.
Vendor profiles
Roll up products scanned, COAs archived, lab names observed, mismatches, and responses.
Product profiles
Track lots, purity figures, labs, documentation gaps, and report history by product.
Documentation completeness comparison
Compare mechanical documentation fields only. This is not a vendor ranking.
Change timeline
Local snapshots and saved reports become a timeline of page changes, claims, and evidence records.
Lab identity profiles
Track lab names observed in uploaded documents. These profiles do not endorse labs.
Duplicate COA detector
Compare file hashes, repeated lot numbers, repeated lab names, and repeated purity claims.
Evidence locker
Every saved report should resolve back to source references, file hashes, timestamps, and methodology version.
Manual review queue
Prioritize reports with mismatches, missing format-relevant documents, or correction activity.
Watchlist
Follow URLs for future change monitoring. Backend v2 should automate capture and alerts.
Monitoring alerts
Alerts are generated from local reports, watched pages, and historical snapshots. Production should send these by email.
Corrections and vendor responses
Capture factual corrections and supplemental documentation with a clear evidence trail.
Database tools
Use these when you need deeper archive analysis.
Review tools
Use these for analyst workflow, alerts, and duplicate detection.
Bulk supplier file
Track vendor identity fields, COA history, lab references, and correction status across products.
Monthly audit packet
Export evidence maps, missing-documentation counts, historical changes, and response logs.
Team workflow
Future backend: reviewer assignments, evidence locks, versioned reports, and role-based access.
Data Moat
The value compounds with every archived document.
Vendor Database
Products scanned, labs observed, COA history, claim changes, open corrections, research depth, and documentation fields.
Product and Lot Lookup
Search by product, lot number, lab, purity claim, report ID, or evidence hash.
Historical Snapshots
Track address removals, purity-claim changes, COA link changes, and health-related language changes.
Duplicate Detection
Detect repeated file hashes, repeated lot numbers, and recurring lab/purity combinations across saved reports.
Research Depth
Classify reports as light, standard, or strong based on source count, evidence references, hashes, and prior snapshots.
Security and Data Handling
Trust also comes from what the product refuses to collect.
Data minimization
ClaimTrace does not ask users what they intend to do with any product, what conditions they have, what outcomes they want, or what they are taking.
Evidence retention
Reports store source references, hashes, reviewed text snippets, timestamps, and correction history so observations can be reproduced.
Vendor separation
No affiliate links, no checkout routing to vendors, and no paid suppression of observations.
Pricing
Start free. Pay for deeper evidence.
Free
$0Basic quick check, report preview, and one free PDF export.
- 1 active report draft
- Four-bucket summary
- 1 PDF export
Full Report
$19Unlock an exportable documentation report after the free PDF.
- Evidence IDs
- PDF metadata hints
- Research-depth profile
- Exportable report
Pro
$29/moUnlimited quick checks plus monitoring workspace.
- Watchlist
- Report history
- Vendor/product profiles
- Duplicate checks
Manual Review
$99+Human-reviewed documentation audit.
- Manual evidence review
- Correction-ready report
- Priority export
Public Changelog
Market trust compounds when the product history is visible.
Every material methodology, report-format, or data-handling change should be recorded here before launch.
Trust Center and Sample Reports
Added public trust center, synthetic sample reports, correction portal entry points, and security/data handling language.
Evidence Locker and Review Queue
Added evidence-level workspace views, manual review triage, monitoring alerts, and copyable trust packet summaries.
Methodology v1.0
Published fixed mechanical checks for document inventory, internal consistency, claim audit, file forensics, and historical change detection.
Methodology v1.0
We assess documents. We do not assess products.
The full versioned methodology lives at methodology.md. The summary below mirrors the canonical document.
What This Service Is
ClaimTrace evaluates whether a peptide vendor's publicly provided documentation is complete, internally consistent, current, and independently verifiable.
What This Service Is Not
We do not test peptides, determine whether a product is safe, pure, sterile, effective, legal, or appropriate for any use, provide medical or legal advice, recommend vendors, coordinate purchases, or collect information about intended use.
Standard Checks
- Document inventory: COA, batch specificity, lab name, method, sterility/endotoxin docs, business identity, and address fields.
- Internal consistency: lot numbers, product identity, purity claims, test dates, lab references, file metadata, and repeated document signals.
- Public claim audit: quantitative claims, verifiability claims, identity claims, undefined terms, health-related claims, and disclaimers.
- Historical change detection: changes to addresses, entity names, purity figures, lab references, COA links, and health-related language from archived snapshots.
Limits
Documentation completeness is not product quality. Absence in a report means absence from reviewed materials, not absence in the world.
Worked Examples
Product page lists Lot A, uploaded COA lists Lot B. The report states the mismatch and does not infer intent.
PDF creation date appears after the stated test date. The report records the file property and notes that regenerated PDFs can be legitimate.
A public page includes structure/function language. The report categorizes the claim and links to public agency guidance without making a legal determination.