Our Editorial Criteria

What Our Comparisons Represent

Our comparison pages present factual, publicly available information about service providers within the same category. They are organized by specific criteria (such as minimum order quantity range or certification status) so that buyers can evaluate options based on their own priorities.

Our assessments and comparisons represent Inventory Ready's editorial opinions based on publicly available information. They are not certifications, audits, endorsements, or guarantees. Like a rating agency's credit opinion, our assessments reflect a structured evaluation process applied to available data. They are opinions informed by evidence, not statements of fact about a manufacturer's operations.

What Our Comparisons Are Not

• •Not rankings. The order of manufacturers on comparison pages reflects the stated organizing criteria (alphabetical, by MOQ, by certification count), not a quality judgment.
• •Not recommendations. We present data. You make the decision. We strongly recommend visiting any facility before signing a manufacturing agreement.
• •Not complete. Our dataset covers 130 manufacturers across 8 categories. Many qualified manufacturers are not yet in our directory.
• •Not static. Manufacturer capabilities, certifications, and operations change. Our listings reflect information available at the time of last review.

Comparison Criteria

Each comparison page states its organizing criteria. We compare manufacturers on factual attributes where data is available:

Inclusion Criteria by Category

All categories share four universal criteria: no unresolved FDA enforcement actions, no known fraud indicators, public documentation exists, and at least one verifiable capability claim. Each category also has a regulatory or professional requirement specific to its service type. We may also review publicly available FDA compliance data, such as facility inspection classifications, as part of our editorial process. These criteria reflect our current editorial review process.

Criteria may evolve as our editorial approach develops. We are a small editorial team; our review depth is described honestly, and not every listed company has received identical scrutiny.

Data Sources and Verification

All manufacturer information is sourced from publicly available records. We do not conduct on-site inspections or audits. Each manufacturer listing cites its specific sources so readers can verify our work.

Our primary data sources include: company websites, FDA registration databases, third-party certification directories (NSF International, USP, SQF), industry databases (ThomasNet), state business registries, and manufacturer-provided documentation. We also cross-reference OpenFDA enforcement databases for recalls and warning letters.

When information conflicts between sources, we note the discrepancy. When information is unavailable from public sources, we do not speculate or make assumptions.

Assessment Principles

Every manufacturer in our directory is assessed using the same six-gate editorial framework. The gates ensure consistency in how we gather, evaluate, and present information. For a full description of each gate, see our How We Assess page.

Evidence

Claims backed by documentation

Freshness

Reviewed within the last 12 months

Provenance

Sources cited for every claim

Challenge

Inconsistencies flagged, not hidden

Disclosure

Material connections stated

Abstention

Unknown = not published

Editorial Independence

No manufacturer can pay for a better position on comparison pages or for a more favorable assessment. Our comparison comparison method and assessment criteria are the same for every manufacturer, regardless of any commercial relationship. For full details on our revenue model, see How We Get Paid.

How We Work

AI tools assist our research and drafting process. We use AI-assisted analysis to gather publicly available information, cross-reference data sources, and identify inconsistencies. All assessments are reviewed and finalized by a human editor with 16 years of experience in the dietary supplement industry. We disclose AI usage because transparency about process is as important as transparency about data.

Certifications and other claims in manufacturer profiles are confirmed as of the date shown on each profile. Certification status can change after our review. We do not continuously monitor manufacturer credentials. Always confirm current certifications directly with any manufacturer you are evaluating.

Limitations

• •Our dataset is limited to manufacturers we have assessed. Many qualified manufacturers are not yet in our directory.
• •We rely on publicly available information. Manufacturers may have capabilities, certifications, or issues not reflected in public records.
• •Our assessment is point-in-time. Manufacturers change. Certifications lapse or are earned. Facilities expand or close.
• •We are not a regulatory body. Our assessments do not replace FDA inspection, third-party audits, or your own due diligence.

Manufacturer Participation

Manufacturers not yet in our directory can request a review for inclusion. Listed manufacturers can request corrections, provide additional documentation, or ask to be removed at any time through our Claim or Update a Listing page. Corrections supported by documentation are reviewed and incorporated. Manufacturer participation does not influence assessment outcomes.

Correction Policy

Factual accuracy is the foundation of everything we publish. When we get something wrong, we fix it publicly.

• Report an error. Use our Claim or Update a Listing form, or email us directly. Include the specific information you believe is incorrect and the documentation supporting the correction.
• Investigation. We review reported errors within 7 business days. If the error is confirmed, we update the listing immediately. If the reported information conflicts with our sources, we note the discrepancy on the profile.
• Published corrections. Substantive corrections (incorrect certification status, wrong location, erroneous capability claims) are noted with the date of correction and a brief description of what changed. Minor corrections (typos, formatting) are made without notation.

Editorial Status Tiers

Every manufacturer listing has an editorial status that reflects the depth of our review. This is separate from the commercial status (whether the manufacturer has opted into any paid features).

Two-Axis Trust Model

Every manufacturer profile has two independent status indicators. Editorial status reflects our review depth. Commercial status reflects whether the manufacturer has opted into paid features. These are independent: a paid manufacturer does not get a better editorial assessment.

A manufacturer with “Basic” commercial status and “Assessed” editorial status has no commercial relationship with us but has been fully reviewed. A manufacturer with “Partner” commercial status and “Source-Checked” editorial status has a disclosed commercial relationship but has only been partially reviewed. The editorial assessment is the same regardless of commercial tier.

Sample Assessment Walkthrough

To illustrate how our assessment process works, here is a summary of how we evaluated Gemini Pharmaceuticals, a contract manufacturer in Commack, New York. Gemini has no commercial relationship with Inventory Ready.

This is the same process applied to every manufacturer in our directory. The depth of the assessment varies by editorial status tier, but the framework is consistent.