Define the exact raw material
Begin with the source plant, plant part and material description. Our published ecdysterone references concern Cyanotis arachnoidea root extract. State any source restrictions and ask for the full composition and process information for the proposed grade. Keep raw-material records separate from finished capsules and other botanical ingredients; a similar compound name is not enough to establish the same material.
Write the assay and method together
Specify the required analyte, percentage, method and reporting basis. The public product references include UV ≥90% and a separate dual-method reference of UV ≥90% / HPLC ≥30%. These are different specifications. A UV90 reference is not an HPLC90 offer. If your requirement is different, request supplier confirmation rather than inferring availability from another percentage or a chromatogram label.
Request the applicable analytical procedure
Ask for the procedure used for the offered grade, reference-standard information and the calculation basis. Confirm which reported result the method supports. Where a chromatogram is supplied, identify the sample and batch and ask how the assay was calculated. Your technical team can then review whether the result and method answer your purchasing requirement. A method name alone is not the same as a complete controlled procedure.
Compare more than the marker percentage
Review appearance, particle size, moisture, ash and relevant impurity or contaminant requirements alongside the assay. Ask about full composition, extraction solvents and any permitted carriers. Use the exact parameter and unit when comparing proposals. Requirements for the intended application and destination need to be identified for that project; a material listing or a supplier COA is not a general market-approval statement.
Request a coherent document set
Start with a proposed grade specification and ask for a current-lot COA when a lot is proposed. Add analytical methods, relevant source and composition information, handling records and other documents your team requires. Confirm that each record applies to the same material. Historical or reference documents can help describe a sourcing direction, but they should not be presented as current-lot test results. Clarify scope and outstanding requirements before using them in an order decision.
Agree what the sample will establish
Tell us the sample quantity, destination and the analytical or formulation criteria your team will evaluate. Confirm sample identity and batch, available records, costs and shipping terms with the proposed source. Record the evaluation conditions and acceptance criteria. Ask whether the sample is representative of the proposed supply and which documents will be provided for the eventual offered lot; neither point should be assumed from an unlabeled sample.
Keep quotation terms attached to the specification
Provide trial volume, expected repeat demand, packaging preference, requested timing and preferred trade terms. Request pricing against the same source, composition, assay and method that your team reviewed. A lower price for a different assay method or material is not a comparable offer. MOQ, availability, document scope, lead time and additional verification are confirmed for the proposed order; no fixed stock is implied by a published reference.
Resolve gaps before order confirmation
If identity is unclear, results conflict with limits or date/version fields disagree, request clarification and supporting records rather than rewriting the document yourself. Keep the agreed specification, acceptable document versions, sample decision and commercial scope in the purchasing record. We coordinate supplier questions and responses; the accepted order should make responsibilities and any further verification clear before commitment.
Record what is confirmed and what is still open
Use this alongside the method comparison. It organizes the buying decision rather than adding a new grade or analytical claim.
| Decision item | Reference or requirement to record | Evidence to match before acceptance |
|---|---|---|
| Material identity | Cyanotis arachnoidea root extract; full composition to confirm | Specification, source declaration and offered-material description |
| Assay scope | UV ≥90% or separate UV ≥90% / HPLC ≥30% requirements | Relevant lot COA, methods, reference-standard and reporting-basis information |
| Sample link | Sample identity, lot and evaluation criteria | Matching sample records and the agreed technical review |
| Document gaps | Missing tests, conflicting dates or unclear version scope | Supplier clarification and corrected or applicable controlled records |
| Order scope | Agreed grade, quantity, destination, packaging and trade terms | Accepted specification, current proposal and responsibilities |
Illustrative hold point: the sample record names one lot, but the COA supplied for review names another. Ask which record applies and how the sample relates to the proposed order. Do not overwrite the lot number or use a historical result as the shipment result.
The method guide explains the UV/HPLC distinction; this checklist records the supporting material, sample, document and commercial decisions. A supplier response should close each applicable question before order confirmation.