So this page carries two things almost nobody publishes: every finding we have withdrawn, and a plain list of what the audit does not cover. Both admit fallibility, which is the point. A vendor who names their own limits is the one worth believing about everything else.
Every finding withdrawn or materially amended, whether a brand asked us to look again or our own review caught it first. Nothing is added for effect and nothing is removed once added.
The engine flagged "Studies show that the combination of alpha-glycerylphosphorylcholine" on a cognitive listing as an uncited study claim. Review found the surrounding copy did cite the study, and the finding was a compliant reframe rather than a violation.
Outcome. Finding withdrawn. It was never sent to the brand.
The engine returned two Critical findings on "helps relieve stress" and "help to relieve stress", reading them as symptom-relief claims. Stress is not a disease and that phrasing is ordinary structure/function language. The engine's own note hedged on both.
Outcome. Both withdrawn and the brand removed from the send list. A message calling that a Critical would have been wrong.
A warning-letter target was recorded as still publishing the exact phrase the FDA had quoted. Checking the live site showed the phrase had been removed and only the product name remained.
Outcome. Record corrected. What holds is that the letter is public and permanent, not that the claim is still up.
Every entry above was caught before the finding reached a brand. That is not luck. The engine produces findings and a licensed pharmacist reviews them, and that review exists precisely because machine output needs checking. When one gets through anyway, it appears here with the same detail.
Anyone can report one. You do not have to be a client. Send the finding and why you think it is wrong to audit@claimsverified.org.
We answer within five business days with one of three outcomes: the finding stands and here is why, the finding is amended, or the finding is withdrawn.
Withdrawn or amended, it goes on this page. Named only if you want it named. The entry goes up either way.
Every line here is a question a buyer eventually asks. Better answered before you pay than after.
Nothing we do says anything about what is in the bottle: not purity, not potency, not dose, not contamination, not whether it works. USP and NSF certify that. We certify what is said about it.
We do not review manufacturing, GMP compliance, or any supplier. Where a listing claims a facility credential, we check whether the claim is supportable from the listing, not whether the facility holds it.
A finding is a professional opinion under a published rubric, signed by a licensed pharmacist. It is not a legal opinion and we are not your lawyers. Where a brand needs counsel we say so and refer up.
No regulator reviews or approves a supplement claim before it is published, and nothing we issue changes that. A pass from us is not a defence, it is evidence of the review you did.
The audit covers the assets listed in the report. Copy changes constantly, so a report is a snapshot with a date on it, which is why monitoring exists.
The engine produces findings and a pharmacist reviews them, and that review exists because machine output needs checking. When something gets through anyway, it goes in the record above.
What is left after all of that is one thing done properly: every claim you publish, ruled against 81 published standards, with the rule each one runs into and a compliant rewrite, signed by a licensed pharmacist.