New vendor application — April 2026 verification cycle

One concrete data point for the thread. Red flags, in rough order of how much they should worry you: no verifiable address, no batch numbers, prices far under market, vendor-commissioned tests only, pressure toward irreversible payment, and shipping with no temperature control.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What a vetting checklist should actually contain, as opposed to a list of things that are easy to fake?

wendy_avl said:

Red flags, in rough order of how much they should worry you: no verifiable address, no batch numbers, prices far under market, vendor-commissioned…

Coming at wendy_avl’s question from a different direction. The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product. A bad batch comes with communication, a reshipment offer and a batch number. An exit comes with slower replies, pressure toward less reversible payment methods, sudden discounting, and the same reassurance repeated without any new information. The product tells you less than the correspondence does.

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Went back through my own correspondence with an earlier supplier and the warning signs were all there in the replies, weeks before the quality changed. I was reading the product and not the behaviour.

roxy_nash said:

The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product.

Right, and one flattering data point from a group buy is not consistency. Consistency means separate batches, separately commissioned, over months.