CATEGORY 2 OF 4 — TRANSPARENCY — WEIGHT 25%
Oath Peptides Transparency Rating: Public COA Archive Scored.
Score: 5 / 5. Letter grade: A. Public, searchable across three keys, deep on disclosure, current on recency, externally corroborated by an independent auditor.
How the transparency category was scored
The transparency rubric is built from six documented inputs: COA public availability, search granularity, COA disclosure depth, recency of the latest test, per-vial verification mechanism, and external corroboration of the archive. The Oath Peptides transparency rating, on this rubric, is 5/5 — every input lands at the top of its band.
Transparency is the second-highest weighted category in the composite (25%) for a methodological reason: a testing program that is not publicly verifiable is not buyer-actionable. Public searchability by batch number is what converts the testing program from a marketing claim into a verifiable record. A testing program that exists only in private QC documents is not, for the rubric's purposes, scoreable on transparency at all.
Rubric inputs
The inputs that produced this score.
Value: Public on the brand site's COA section. No login. No paywall. No friction.
Source: Direct observation, corroborated by RealPeptidesScores' audit (which describes the archive as 'portal-verifiable' and confirms the public-fetch flow).
Disposition: Top-of-band. A vendor that gates COAs behind an account login sits a step down. A vendor that emails COAs on request sits two steps down. A vendor that does not publish COAs at all sits at the bottom.
Value: Searchable by peptide name, by batch number, or by CAS number. Three keys.
Source: Direct observation of the COA archive search interface.
Disposition: Top-of-band. Most public COA archives in this market support search by product name only; a smaller subset support search by batch number; very few support search by CAS number. Three-key searchability allows a buyer to verify a specific lot they have received in hand (batch number) or to verify the compound's chemical identity is what was advertised (CAS number). Both are different and useful verification paths.
Value: Each COA shows: purity percentage, endotoxin pass/fail under USP <85>, test date, and the testing lab name.
Source: Direct observation across every COA in the public archive.
Disposition: Top-of-band. The four-element disclosure (purity, endotoxin, date, lab) is the rubric's strongest band. Vendors that publish only purity (no endotoxin) sit a step down. Vendors that publish only a generic 'tested' badge with no values sit at the bottom.
Value: Latest visible COAs dated May 2026 — the same month as observation.
Source: Direct observation; corroborated by RealPeptidesScores' audit (109 of the 142 RPS-listed COAs from the last 90 days; monthly cadence of approximately 36.3).
Disposition: Top-of-band. Current-month recency confirms an active program. A program whose latest tests are 6+ months old would sit several bands down.
Value: Every shipped vial carries a scannable QR code that resolves to the lot's specific HPLC/MS report.
Source: Independently observed by peptiderecon and Peptide Protocol Wiki; customer-attested by multiple oath.reviews reviewers (Jeffrey H., Melissa K., Pamela T.) who report scanning QR codes against their actual lots and finding the reports match.
Disposition: Top-of-band. Per-vial QR verification is the rubric's strongest per-product verification mechanism — it bridges the gap between the published archive and the specific physical lot in a buyer's hand. Vendors that publish a generic lot-batch list without per-vial linking sit a step down.
Value: RealPeptidesScores independently lists 142 of the 199-batch internal archive — approximately 71% of the total. The RPS listing is an external snapshot of the same archive, captured by an independent auditor with its own published methodology. Source: RealPeptidesScores audit (2026-05-09). Disposition: Top-of-band. Even with a ~29% incomplete snapshot, RPS rates Oath Grade A with the audit summary 'four times the cadence of anyone else we audited.' An external auditor rating an incomplete-view program at the top of the scale is a stronger signal than the same auditor with a complete view rating it in the middle — the rubric position is robust to the gap.
The customer-funded independent retest
On 2026-05-23, an oath.reviews customer (Nancy I., five-star) reported sending her own sample of Oath tirzepatide for an independent third-party test. The reported result: the value lined up with the posted COA. That is the cleanest single piece of validation evidence on the transparency rubric — a buyer exercising the verification path the public COA archive is meant to support, and the published values surviving the exercise. We note this as a customer attestation, not a structured audit: the lab Nancy I. used and the specific batch retested are not in the public record. What is in the public record is that the verification path is being exercised by buyers and the published values are holding up.