SYS · ONLINE│BATCH 2026·04·20│27 SAMPLES · 12 SUPPLIERS · 51 PEPTIDES│PASS · 63.0%│2026-04-20│v0.2.1
§ Objections
How to formally challenge our published data.
Every piece of data we publish is open to challenge. If a vendor believes a specific assay, ranking, or claim on Open Assay is wrong, this is the formal process for getting it corrected. The process is free, has a 14-day review window, and its outcomes — sustained or not — are publicly documented on the corrections log.
No silent removalsAs a matter of policy, Open Assay does not remove previously published data without verifiable evidence of error. Sustained objections produce corrections; the original record stays alongside the correction. Unsustained objections do not remove data either — but we record the fact that an objection was reviewed and dismissed, to avoid appearing to hide the dispute.READ FIRST → § 01
Four grounds for objection
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Clear laboratory error acknowledged by the testing facility
The lab that produced the underlying COA concedes in writing that a measurement was wrong — integration error, instrument drift, reference-standard mismatch, transcription mistake. When the lab re-issues the COA, we update our citation and publish the correction.
What evidence we need
- A signed re-issued COA from the original testing lab, with a note explaining what was wrong with the first report.
- Or a dated email from a named analyst at the lab acknowledging the error in writing.
Verified sample mix-up or chain-of-custody issue
The vial that was tested and attributed to your product was demonstrably not your product — sent-by-mistake container, mislabeled vial, cross-contamination at an aggregator, shipping damage that compromised the sample.
What evidence we need
- Shipping records showing a different batch than the one we tested was in-transit at the time.
- A statement from the submitter (if public-contributed) acknowledging the mix-up.
- Lab chain-of-custody documentation demonstrating the break.
Fraudulent or tampered data with verifiable evidence
A COA we cited was forged, altered after issuance, or fabricated outright. This criterion is rarely invoked in the direction of protecting a vendor — most fraud cases run the other way (a vendor forging a clean COA and us retracting our citation of it).
What evidence we need
- Signed statement from the purported lab confirming the document is not theirs.
- Metadata or file-hash analysis showing post-issuance tampering.
- Forensic comparison to the lab’s known-valid templates.
Incorrect vendor or product attribution
A test result is correctly measured but attributed to the wrong vendor or the wrong peptide. Example: a Finnrick test of "Alpha Labs Retatrutide" appears on our site under "Alpha Labs" when Alpha Labs has never sold retatrutide — the Finnrick record is correct but our pull attributed it wrongly.
What evidence we need
- Documentation that the attributed vendor has never sold the product in question during the relevant period.
- Cross-reference against the original Finnrick / Janoshik / Freedom record showing a different vendor name.
- Send a single email to
objections@openassay.org with the subject line Objection — [your company name]. - Identify what you are objecting to — permalink to the assay record, supplier page, or specific claim. Be precise about what text or number you believe is wrong.
- Identify which ground (A, B, C, or D) applies, and attach the corresponding evidence listed above.
- Identify your role — operations lead, founder, outside counsel — and the email on record we can reply to.
Review window
We aim to acknowledge every objection within 5 business days and to complete the review within 14 calendar days from the acknowledgement. Reviews that require follow-up with a third-party lab can extend past 14 days; when they do, we post a status update to the corrections log and email the objector.
What happens after review
The review produces one of three outcomes:
- Sustained — the evidence supports the objection. We publish a correction to the original record, with a description of what changed and why, and add an entry to the corrections log. The original stays alongside.
- Sustained in part — some element of the objection is valid (e.g., a transcription error we caught during review) but the headline claim is unchanged. We correct what we agree with and annotate the record with what we do not.
- Not sustained — the evidence does not warrant a correction. We record the objection on the corrections log as a dismissed review with a brief reasoning note, so a future reader can see the dispute existed even though the data did not change.
What we will not do
- Remove published data quietly. If a correction is warranted, the correction appears; the original does not vanish.
- Accept payment to modify data. Objections and their outcomes are independent of any affiliate, Golden Sample, or testing-program relationship. A vendor who is an affiliate partner and a vendor who is not are treated identically.
- Engage with threats of legal action as a substitute for evidence. The evidence rubric above is the entire bar. A cease-and-desist letter does not replace a re-issued COA.