Coming back to: When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retraction

When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retraction I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.

A logistics question, since the answers here are usually better than anywhere else I have looked.

Parcel despatched 6 days ago, tracking last updated 3 days ago at a customs facility, no further movement. Cold pack included at despatch.

Two questions. First, at what point is this genuinely a problem rather than an ordinary delay? Second, if it does arrive, what is the actual decision process for assessing it, as opposed to the two extremes people usually offer?

the opening post answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

Inability to trace lots: if you ask "where was this synthesised, by whom, under what conditions" and cannot get a clear answer, that is a red flag. Traceability is not glamorous but it is foundational.

Unresponsiveness: a supplier that does not reply to reasonable requests for documentation or clarification is showing you something about how they operate.

Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.

Pricing patterns: unusually low prices for what are otherwise consistent with market rates might indicate lower quality, stolen goods, or a scam. Unusually high prices without justification raise different flags.

Inconsistency across documents: a certificate stating one purity, a website claiming another, and a supplier's verbal representation claiming a third, all on the same product, is a red flag for either incompetence or deception.

Rapid supplier turnover: a supplier that changes corporate structure, domain name, or contact repeatedly in short time windows raises suspicion about stability and legitimacy.

This follows post #5 rather than contradicting it.

Exaggerated claims without documentation: every compound has limits. No peptide is "100% pure" because purity is measured to finite precision. A supplier claiming implausible perfection without backing evidence is overreaching.

Anonymity: a supplier that will not disclose legal name, address, or responsible person is not operating in a way that allows accountability.

Patterns that reliably precede a problem: underdosing (less active material than stated, documented by independent testing), mislabelling (wrong compound, wrong strength, or wrong batch on the label), and failure to provide documentation when asked.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.