How suppliers are scored
Every paid evidence review uses the same five criteria. Free licence-record pages are not reviews and carry no score. Each scored criterion rests on a state licence record, a lab document, a regulator’s published action, or a document the supplier hands over on request. Nothing is scored on reputation, marketing, or how well known a trading name is.
A score tells you where a supplier’s paperwork is strong and where you will have to dig. It is not a safety guarantee and it does not replace your own diligence.
1. Licence status
What is checked: that the operating entity holds a current licence in the state it ships from, and that the licence number the supplier gives you matches the one on the state’s public register.
Where the evidence comes from: the state licence lookup, not the supplier’s website. In California that is the DCC licence search.
Strong: licence active, entity name matches the name on invoices and COAs. Weak: licence held by a related company, a name that does not match the paperwork, or a status of anything other than active.
2. Testing transparency
What is checked: whether you can get a certificate of analysis for the specific batch you are being sold, from a licensed laboratory, dated, with the batch identifier printed on it.
Where the evidence comes from: the COA itself, cross-checked against the state’s list of licensed testing laboratories. Our guide to reading a COA covers what to look for on the document.
Strong: batch-level COAs available before purchase, lab licensed, batch ID matches the product. Weak: one COA reused across batches, a summary instead of the full panel, or a lab that does not appear on the state list.
3. Regulatory record
What is checked: published recalls, embargoes, and enforcement actions involving the entity, and what the supplier did afterwards.
Where the evidence comes from: the regulator’s own postings — California’s recall portal and enforcement notices. A recall is a published fact; how a company handled it is what separates two suppliers with the same record.
Strong: a clean record, or a recall with a documented corrective action and clear customer notification. Weak: repeat events in the same category, or an event the supplier does not acknowledge when asked.
4. Documentation response
What is checked: whether the supplier can produce lot-linked paperwork on request, and how long it takes.
Where the evidence comes from: a documentation request with a stated deadline, and what comes back. This is one of three criteria that needs supplier-provided evidence.
Strong: the requested package arrives complete within the stated window, with a named contact for follow-up. Weak: partial packages, repeated escalation needed, or documents that arrive without the batch identifiers that make them usable.
5. Claim consistency
What is checked: whether public claims — potency, origin, category, awards, licence scope — match the documents behind them.
Where the evidence comes from: the supplier’s own published claims set against their COAs and licence record. Our note on menu visibility versus compliance signals covers why shelf presence is not evidence of either.
Strong: claims are specific and traceable to a document. Weak: superlatives with nothing behind them, or numbers that do not appear on any COA.
How the score is put together
Each criterion in a paid review is scored strong, mixed, or weak, and every score is published with the source that produced it. Where a criterion cannot be checked, it is marked unverified rather than assumed either way — an unverified criterion is a gap in the evidence, not a mark against the supplier.
Listings are ordered by how many criteria reach strong. Criteria 1 and 2 break ties, because a licence and a batch-level COA are the two things a buyer can check without our help.
What the submission fee buys
Submitting one licensed California supplier for review costs $49. The fee pays for the evidence review, a written result, and publication for 12 months. It is charged whether the result is strong or weak. It does not buy a favourable score, a higher position, or permanent publication. Every scored review shows that its subject paid the fee.
A supplier who does not like their score can dispute a specific finding with evidence through the corrections process. There is no route to change a score without changing the evidence.