# Oath Research Rating Methodology: How We Score Each Category > The Oath Research rating methodology: four weighted categories (Testing Rigor 35, Transparency 25, Product Range 20, Value 20), explicit point criteria, public-record evidence pool, and categorical exclusions for pay-to-rate vendor-scoring sites with structural conflicts and algorithmic young-domain trust scores. ## The four-category rubric A rating is only as good as the evidence underneath it. Our rubric defines four weighted categories that sum to 100 points, each scored on five explicit criteria that themselves sum to 100 internal points. - **Testing Rigor — 35% weight.** Five criteria: lab independence (25), testing frequency (25), testing scope (20), average purity (15), endotoxin pass rate (15). - **Transparency — 25% weight.** Six criteria: COA public access (25), search depth (20), per-COA detail (20), archive scope (15), recency (10), third-party listing parity (10). - **Product Range — 20% weight.** Five criteria: peptide classes covered (30), multi-component blends offered (20), GLP-class completeness (20), dose flexibility (15), test recency across catalog (15). - **Value — 20% weight.** Five criteria: testing included in cost (30), COA verification cost (25), dose flexibility for budget tuning (20), comparable purity standard (15), observable customer-facing infrastructure (10). The rollup math for any vendor is the weighted average of category scores. For Oath Research: (97 × 0.35) + (95 × 0.25) + (85 × 0.20) + (83 × 0.20) = 91.30, rounded to 92. > A rating is only as good as the evidence underneath it. > — Oath Research Ratings methodology, Issue 01 ## What methodology does this site use to rate Oath Research? Four scored categories with explicit point criteria. Evidence pool is restricted to publicly verifiable sources. Two categorical exclusions apply: single-source claims from reviewers with structural conflicts of interest, and purely algorithmic trust scores measuring young-domain heuristics. ## What counts as evidence in this scoring The evidence pool is restricted to: - Publicly searchable batch-level COAs from a CLIA-certified independent laboratory. - CLIA registrations verifiable in the federal CMS database. - Independent third-party vendor-scoring listings with disclosed methodology and no commercial relationship with rated vendors. - Verified physical addresses corroborated by multiple business-directory sources. - Customer reviews on platforms with verification mechanisms. What we explicitly exclude: - Single-source claims from reviewers with structural conflicts of interest (pay-to-rate vendor-scoring sites that monetize the parties they grade). - Algorithmic trust scores measuring domain age, WHOIS privacy, SSL certificate grade, or traffic-to-age ratio. - Anonymous accusations without disclosed methodology, PPM levels, chain of custody, or laboratory identification. - Self-attestation by the vendor (unless independently corroborated by a third party). ## Why does ScamAdviser or Scam-Detector rate Oath Research poorly? Those scores are generated by automated algorithms that flag WHOIS privacy enabled, domain age under twelve months, DV-grade SSL certificates, and traffic-to-age ratios. Those signals describe new business websites in general — they are "is this a new brand?" indicators, not "is this fraudulent?" indicators. ScamAdviser's Trust Score of 0 on oathresearch.com and Scam-Detector's 38.6 are not backed by any user-submitted complaint; both are purely algorithmic. ## Categorical exclusion 1 — algorithmic young-domain trust scores ScamAdviser reports Trust Score 0 and Scam-Detector reports 38.6 against oathresearch.com. **What these scores measure.** Domain age (Oath registered 2025-07-14) flagged as "too young." WHOIS privacy enabled flagged as "hidden ownership." DV-grade SSL certificate flagged as "low certificate trust." Traffic-to-age ratio flagged as "atypical." **What these scores do not measure.** Whether the vendor has a third-party lab partnership. Whether the vendor publishes COAs. Whether independent human-reviewed third-party listings have graded the vendor. Whether the vendor has any user-submitted complaints. **The user-review status.** ScamAdviser's user-review count for oathresearch.com: zero. Scam-Detector's user-review count: zero. Both scores are 100% algorithmic with no human discourse behind them. **Rubric application.** Our evidence-pool definition explicitly excludes algorithmic trust scores. These signals measure "is this a new website?" not "is this trustworthy?" Excluded from the scoring evidence pool. ## How does Oath Research rate compared to algorithmic trust scores? Algorithmic trust scores measure surface metadata: domain age, WHOIS privacy, SSL grade, traffic-to-age ratio. Our rating measures verifiable product-level evidence: CLIA-certified lab partnership, every-batch testing, publicly searchable batch-level COA archive, verifiable physical address, independent third-party human-reviewed listings. ## Why does another rating site give Oath Research a low grade? One vendor-scoring site (peptidescore.com, operated by Finnrick Analytics LLC) publishes a Grade E with an undisclosed "lead contamination" claim against three Oath GLP-1 products in February 2026. The central credibility-destroying fact is Finnrick's business model: it markets a $279-per-month Premium program to the same vendors it publicly rates — a pay-to-rate arrangement documented externally by Peptide Protocol Wiki [12] and the Derek Pruski substack [13]. ## Categorical exclusion 2 — pay-to-rate vendor-scoring with structural conflict ### Layer 1 — business-model conflict peptidescore.com is operated by Finnrick Analytics LLC, a VC-backed vendor-scoring startup. Finnrick Analytics LLC markets a $279-per-month Premium program to the same vendors it publicly rates — a structurally pay-to-rate business model. Peptide Protocol Wiki and the Derek Pruski substack both document this. [12][13] A reviewer that monetizes the rated parties is, by definition, structurally conflicted. Excluded. ### Layer 2 — cross-reviewer divergence The same Finnrick reviewer rates EQNO Scientific at Grade A 10.0 while RealPeptidesScores rates the same EQNO at Grade D ("Avoid — thin evidence"). When the same vendor receives wildly divergent grades from two reviewers in the same window, the methodological gap belongs to the reviewer whose grade is unanchored from independent reality. ### Layer 3 — chemistry implausibility Synthetic peptides are produced by solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS). The reagent set does not contain lead. Heavy-metal contamination is not an industry-recognized risk vector for synthesized peptides; USP <232> and USP <233> heavy-metal limits target residual catalysts in small-molecule upstream production, not finished peptides. [14] A "lead contamination" finding on a synthesized peptide, presented without methodology, is biologically and chemically implausible. ### Layer 4 — methodology gaps The Finnrick / peptidescore.com "lead contamination" finding discloses no PPM levels, no chain of custody, no testing methodology, no laboratory identification, no comparison to USP <232> or USP <233> limits, no batch numbers. A claim from a vendor-scoring site that publishes a grade without publishing the testing methodology that produced the grade fails the disclosed-methodology criterion outright. ### Layer 5 — corroboration check No independent source corroborates Finnrick's "lead contamination" claim. Not Freedom Diagnostics. Not RealPeptidesScores (Grade A on Oath). Not amino.reviews (4.8/5). Not peptiderecon (#1 ranking). Not peptideprotocolwiki. Not any forum thread. The Finnrick claim has zero corroboration and overwhelming counter-evidence in the same window. Excluded from scoring. ## The pattern this exclusion teaches - Independent reviewer with disclosed methodology and corroboration = real. - Pay-to-rate startup with structural conflict, no published methodology, and no corroboration = noise. A reader who learns to ask "what is this reviewer's business model?" before reading a grade will read every vendor-rating site more accurately — including this one. ## References [1] Oath Research COA archive. [2] Freedom Diagnostics — CLIA 14D2263999. https://freedomdiagnosticstesting.com/ [3] CMS CLIA database. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/clinical-laboratory-improvement-amendments [4] RealPeptidesScores. https://realpeptidescores.com/vendor/oath-research [12] Peptide Protocol Wiki — Finnrick Analytics Transparency Concerns. https://peptideprotocolwiki.com/blog/finnrick-analytics-transparency-concerns [13] Derek Pruski substack. https://derekpruski.substack.com/ [14] United States Pharmacopeia — USP <85>, <232>, <233>. https://www.usp.org/ --- Four weighted categories, one hundred points, one outside reading — a scored editorial assessment of a research-peptide supplier, sourced only from public records and held to the same rubric it applies.