COA documentation and transparency concerns

I ordered DSIP from Valor Peptides and discovered that I could not verify the appropriate COA for the lot I received. I contacted Valor and raised the documentation issue directly. What followed was approximately two weeks of back-and-forth regarding the COA, the testing timeline, and when the documentation associated with my product was actually generated and made available. A COA for lot DS0002 was subsequently provided. The Accumark verification record shows the sample was received April 2, 2026, but the analysis was completed August 19, 2026. That completion date was after I had already contacted Valor questioning the missing documentation. That raised an obvious question for me: Why was the COA dated after I had already brought the documentation problem to Valor’s attention? Because I still had questions about the explanation I was given, I ultimately contacted Accumark Labs myself to independently verify the testing and COA timeline. That is the part of this experience that concerns me most. I don’t believe a customer should have to contact the testing laboratory directly to verify a vendor’s explanation about the testing documentation for a product the customer has already purchased. My concern isn’t simply that there was a problem. Mistakes happen. My concern is the amount of time and effort it took to establish what had happened and obtain information I could independently verify. Valor ultimately offered me a refund. As of August 30, I have not received it. I will update this post if and when that changes. For me, accessible batch-specific documentation and a clear, verifiable testing timeline are fundamental parts of evaluating an RUO vendor. Based on my experience with this order, I was not comfortable with the level of transparency I received. Note regarding the attached images: The first is for MOTS-c, which was part of the same order. The second is the DSIP COA that was updated after my inquiry.