The Lot Mark

Lot CM20251225A.
Four of four.

Base Work, creatine monohydrate. The best-documented ingredient in the range, and not the product this site is built around — a named laboratory with a checkable accreditation number, a named signatory with a title and a date, a stated limit of quantitation, and a quantitative assay against a numeric specification. What it is not is a test of the tub: the sample is a sealed bag of bulk creatine powder, the company that commissioned the assay is not TARE, and the certificate’s serving line reads N/A. Two of the four axes are scored from a single row, which is the one place this mark can be argued down, and the argument is on this page rather than left for a reader to find.

Lot Mark 4 / 4 Lot CM20251225A · completed 2026-02-18 · Ethos Analytics · ISO/IEC 17025 Acc #117798

The Lot Mark · Base Work · lot CM20251225A · our count, on our document
Axis	State	Figure, with its opponent	Margin	Method
Identity	MEASURED	The label claim profile assays creatine monohydrate at 99.87%. On a one-ingredient powder that row answers what the substance is as well as how much of it there is — see the note under the table, which argues the case against us.	No ratio: an identification is not a quantity with a ceiling	HPLC
Metals	MEASURED	Heavy metals by ICP-MS on a numeric `USP <233>` page — results printed as figures, every line a pass.	No margin printed: the individual figures are not yet transcribed	ICP-MS USP <233>
Microbiology	MEASURED	Microbiological panel, every line a pass.	No ratio: the document reports verdicts against limits	Petrifilm qPCR
Potency	MEASURED	99.87% creatine monohydrate against a specification of more than 99.5%. Limit of quantitation 100 ppm.	0.37 above the floor	HPLC

Chain: Ethos Analytics Laboratory, 3020 E Camelback Rd STE 397, Phoenix AZ 85016. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation #117798; licence 000026LRCND60176649. Signed Noel Samsum, Laboratory Director, 18 February 2026. Sample received 2026-02-10, work completed 2026-02-18. The customer of record is Vox Nutrition, not TARE and not our manufacturer, and the sample is a sealed bag of bulk creatine powder made by Accobio USA Inc., photographed on the document. This certificate tests the raw material, not a finished tub of Base Work: its serving line reads Serving Size: N/A, and it states that it applies only to the sample it names.
Arithmetic: 0.37 is ours: 99.87 − 99.5. Both operands are printed above and in the table below. Everything else is transcription. Two of the four axes are scored from one row, which is the one place this mark could be argued down — the argument is directly beneath the table and we make it ourselves.
Limit: This is the lot on the document. It is not the lot in your jar.

Four questions a certificate can answer, counted. The state is a count of rows on a document — whether a result column exists for that axis, with a method printed beside it. The margin is the division or subtraction of two figures printed on the same row, and both operands are above so you can redo it. The token is a count of counts, and the denominator is always printed so it reads as an incompletion rather than an award. Nobody awards this and there is no body that could take it away. What each of those words means, at length.

Read this before you read the mark

What this certificate is,
and what it is not.

It is not a test of Base Work. It is a test of the creatine that goes into Base Work, run on that powder as it arrived from the company that made it. The sample is a sealed bag photographed on the document itself, labelled Manufacturer: Accobio USA Inc., 12335-Creatine Monohydrate 200 mesh, Lot CM20251225A, sampled 2026-02-05. The customer of record is Vox Nutrition. The line where a serving size would go reads Serving Size: N/A, because the thing tested did not have servings yet.

What it does establish is real, and it is the strongest document on this site. An outside laboratory with a checkable accreditation number, working to numbered public methods, assayed that bag above its own specification and passed it on every heavy-metal and microbiological line. That is a real fact about the material our manufacturer buys, and we would rather hold it than not.

What it does not establish is everything after the bag. Nothing on it was measured once that powder was blended, filled, sealed or shipped. We hold no finished-product certificate for Base Work, and no document connects this raw-material lot to any tub. Until one exists the only honest sentence is the one at the top of this box, and we would rather print it here than let a potency figure sit beside a photograph of a tub and do its work quietly.

The document, published whole

This is the certificate. Nothing on it is cropped, marked or redacted.

What this document is — Ethos Analytics Laboratory, 3020 E Camelback Rd STE 397, Phoenix AZ 85016, tested for Vox Nutrition of West Jordan, Utah. Sample Name “12335 – Creatine Monohydrate” · Sample Type Powder · Lot CM20251225A · EA Sample ID 26EA0209-007 · Serving Size N/A. Received 02/10/2026, completed 02/18/2026, signed Noel Samsum, Laboratory Director, 18 Feb 2026. Lic # 000026LRCND60176649 · ISO/IEC 17025 Acc # 117798. The sample photograph is a sealed poly bag of bulk raw material from Accobio USA Inc — the ingredient, not a TARE tub, and the customer of record is Vox Nutrition rather than TARE or Rocktomic. Reproduced whole and unaltered.

Field by field

Where every line
on this page came from.

One row per field: what it says, where it came from, and how a stranger checks it without taking our word for any of it. Most of these you can check today. Two of them nobody can check yet, and those rows say so rather than reading as though they were the same kind of fact as the others.

Lot code: CM20251225A, as printed on the certificate header and again on the bag in the photograph beside it. It is a raw-material lot, not a TARE lot. It names a batch of bulk creatine made by Accobio USA Inc. and sampled on 2026-02-05, and it is not the code printed on a tub of Base Work. Two of our three certificates name a lot; this is one of them.Source — the certificate header and the sample photograph on itCheck it — Not yet, independently. The file is not published — the limits at the foot of this page say why.
Formula and servings: Base Work — creatine monohydrate, one ingredient, 5 g a serving, 60 servings to the tub, 300 g net. The full panel is on The Monograph. None of that is on the certificate. The document prints Serving Size: N/A and describes a powder in a bag, so nothing on it is a statement about a serving, a scoop, a tub or a fill weight.Source — the label for the panel; the certificate for the serving lineCheck it — Read the tub for the panel. Serving Size: N/A is printed at the top right of the certificate.
Dates and extent: Sample received 2026-02-10. Work completed 2026-02-18. Signed Noel Samsum, Laboratory Director. Manufactured: Not printed on the document.Source — the certificate, and absent where the document does not print itCheck it — The transcription, row for row.
The four axis states: Identity, metals, microbiology and potency all measured. That is 4 / 4 — and two of those four are scored from one row, which is set out under the mark above and again below.Source — counting rows on the certificateCheck it — The full transcription, row for row. If a row we call measured has no result beside it there, the mark is wrong and we want to be told.
Every figure, with its specification: In the mark above, and in full at the transcription. It is deliberately not re-typed on this page: a second copy of the same figures is a second chance for them to disagree. One number, one place.Source — transcription from the certificateCheck it — /testing#base-work, row for row.
Margin: 0.37 above the floor on potency, from 99.87 − 99.5. That subtraction is ours and both operands are printed in the mark above. It is deliberately not written as a ratio — 99.87 divided by 99.5 is 1.004, and dressing a third of a percentage point up as a margin is the exact move this system exists to refuse.Source — ours — a subtraction, both operands printedCheck it — Redo the subtraction. Ten seconds, no trust required. If it does not come out, we have made an error, and it gets corrected here in public.
Method: USP <233> heads the heavy-metal page and USP <2021>, USP <2022> head the microbiological one. Those are published methods with numbers — anyone can look up what they involve. HPLC and Petrifilm / qPCR, as the summary table writes them, name a technique rather than a numbered protocol, so they say what was done without saying to which written procedure.Source — the certificateCheck it — A numbered public method can be looked up by anyone. An internal laboratory code cannot be, by anybody outside that laboratory, and the difference is the whole of what a method column is worth.
Laboratory: Ethos Analytics Laboratory, 3020 E Camelback Rd STE 397, Phoenix AZ 85016. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation number 117798; licence 000026LRCND60176649. It had nothing to do with making this powder, and it was not engaged by us. That number belongs to the laboratory and not to us, it is not a certification of anything we sell, and we are not presenting it as one.Source — the certificateCheck it — Genuinely checkable. An accreditation number is issued by an accreditation body against a defined scope, and it is printed here in full so it can be looked up rather than taken from us.
Customer of record: Vox Nutrition — not TARE, and not our manufacturer either. The certificate names them as the customer, describes them beneath their logo as a private-label supplement manufacturer, and carries a Vox Nutrition Quality Sign Off line that is blank. No address for them is printed on the document, so none is printed here. Certificates in this trade are issued to whoever commissioned the assay, which is normally somebody buying raw material rather than the brand on the tub. The powder itself was made by a third company, Accobio USA Inc., named on the bag in the sample photograph. We cannot show you how this lot reaches a tub of Base Work: we hold no document connecting the two, and that question is open with our manufacturer.Source — the certificate header, its sign-off block and the sample photographCheck it — All three company names are printed on the document. The open questions are listed at /testing.
GMP assessor, standard, expiry, scope: Not known — open with our manufacturer. Until August 2026 this site carried facility attestation letters belonging to our former manufacturer. On the day we changed manufacturer they stopped describing anything we sell, so all four fields came off — assessor, standard, expiry and scope travel together or none of them do. No badge returns until the letter is in hand and someone has read it.Source — nothing; we hold no letter for the current facilityCheck it — Not checkable by anyone, including us. It is on the open list at /testing and it stays there until a document arrives.
Detection and quantitation limits: Limit of quantitation 100 ppm on the label claim profile. The limits on the heavy-metal and microbiological pages: Not yet transcribed. A result printed as less-than the quantitation limit is the method’s floor, not zero.Source — the certificateCheck it — The ledger of what is still being read lists every cell on this site that is a blank rather than a figure.
What is missing on this lot: The numeric heavy-metal figures and the individual microbiological rows. Both pages print numbers on the document; this site prints “pass” today because a verdict is what we have read. Neither block is being filled in from a specification sheet in the meantime. And the whole of the finished product is missing — nothing here was measured after the powder left Accobio’s bag, so the blend, the fill, the tub and the scoop are untested by this document and by every other document we hold. Nobody bought anything anonymously off a shelf: the document was supplied to us, and the sample it describes is a sealed bag of bulk powder rather than a tub of Base Work.Source — the absence of a transcription, not the absence of a rowCheck it — Every unread cell on this site is listed in one place so you can total them up rather than hunt for them.
Whether this is your lot: It is not. It is not even a TARE lot code — it is a raw-material batch belonging to the company that made the powder. TARE is fulfilled by a contract manufacturer and never takes possession of inventory, so nothing connects a published lot to the tub you receive. We do not offer per-lot traceability and we do not claim it. The day that sentence stops being true it is deleted, and not one day sooner.Source — limit 1 at /testingCheck it — The lookup on the directory page is switched off for exactly this reason, and the note beside it says what would switch it on.

The five strings this page uses for something it does not have

NOT RUN — the test was not performed and no row of any kind exists on the document.

NOT PRINTED ON THE DOCUMENT — the document exists and omits this field.

NOT YET TRANSCRIBED — the row is on the document and we have not finished reading it. Ours to fix, listed at /testing, and never filled in from a label in the meantime.

NOT KNOWN — OPEN WITH OUR MANUFACTURER — we have asked and have not been answered.

NOT HELD — we hold no certificate for that lot at all. That is the answer the lookup would return for nearly every code printed on a tub, which is why it is switched off rather than shipped as a control that can only say no.

The one place this mark can be argued down, made by us

Two of the four axes — identity and potency — are scored from a single row. An HPLC assay reporting 99.87% creatine monohydrate says what the substance is and how much of it is there, in one measurement, which on a one-ingredient powder is genuinely both answers. We count it as both.

Someone could reasonably say one row should score once, and call this 3 / 4. That reading is not wrong, it is a different convention, and we would rather print the objection than have a reader find it and wonder what else is arranged in our favour. Every other axis on every other mark is a separate row on the document.

It is also worth saying plainly what this mark is not: 4 / 4 is a count of how much of this lot was measured, not a verdict that the creatine is better than somebody else’s. It says four questions were asked and four were answered with a figure. And the lot it counts is a lot of raw material. Four questions were asked of a bag of bulk creatine powder; the tub that powder ends up in was never put in front of a laboratory. The three tiers of the word tested.

The limits

What this page
cannot tell you.

Publishing a document is undone by overstating it. Four things this page does not do, written out rather than left for you to notice.

The underlying file is now published, and that changed on 5 September 2026. Certificates in this trade routinely carry a clause requiring the issuer’s written approval before reproduction. We asked. Our manufacturer granted publication in writing on 17 August 2026 — he advised against it, and then said yes — so the document is reproduced whole and unaltered, which is what its own footer requires. The sentence that used to sit here, saying we had not confirmed we may reproduce it, was true when it was written and stopped being true three weeks later. Where that stands across all three documents.
The document says in its own words that it does not travel. Printed at the foot of every page: “The presented report is only applicable to the sample specified above and may not be applied to any similar or identical products.” The sample specified above is a sealed bag of bulk creatine, sampled 2026-02-05 and assayed for another company. We publish it because it is the best evidence we hold about the material in Base Work, not because it certifies Base Work. No finished-product certificate for Base Work exists in anything we hold.
One of our three certificates was run by the company that makes the powder. Not this one: this lot was assayed by an outside laboratory that had nothing to do with making it. The collagen was not, it is our hero product, and its panel says so at the top in the same size type. A mark counts what a document measured; it does not weigh who measured it, so that fact has to be read alongside every mark on this site rather than inside one.
This is the lot on the document. It is not the lot in your jar. TARE is fulfilled by a contract manufacturer and never takes possession of inventory, so we cannot connect the lot on a published document to the tub in your hands. We do not offer per-lot traceability and we do not claim it.
A certificate verifies contents. It does not verify effects. Nothing on this page is a claim about what any of this does for anyone.

The full transcription All three lot marks Base Work on The Monograph

What this certificate is,and what it is not.