# Known gaps and C5 unknowns — DIY Lab Testing research **Last updated:** 2026-04-23 (round-3 integration: see "Closed in round 3" section below for the items resolved or downgraded) > **Round-3 short summary.** Seven C5 unknowns moved to C1–C3; two more partially closed to C4. The round-3 source pass `research/searches/01-c5-gap-closure.md` is the primary record. The biggest closures: testing.trans.diy maintainer (now C2: pseudonym "sam"), Artemis Analytical methodology + cost (HPLC-UV + GC-MS, $0/submitter, $60 materials), Krause Analytical leadership (Mark Krause + Austin Analytical link), MZ Biolabs founder (Ken Pendarvis), Janoshik public team (Peter Magic / Edita Prokešová / Jakub Dobrík). The community-circulating "Jan Orčík" name behind the Janoshik pseudonym was searched and **did not corroborate** — explicitly flagged as unverified rumour, not propagated as fact. This is the honest list of what the research corpus does **not** know and why — complementing `summary.md` and the per-phase docs. Each entry lists the question, the search strategies tried, the sources checked, and why the gap remains. If you can close one of these, please update the corresponding detail doc and this file. --- ## 1. testing.trans.diy maintainer identity **Question:** Who runs testing.trans.diy? **Why it matters:** provenance for the dataset, accountability for the vendor-status ranking system. **Search strategies tried:** - Full crawl of testing.trans.diy (home, /about, /labs, /results, /vendors, individual lab and vendor pages). - Grep across scraped markdown for "about", "contact", "team", "github", "twitter", "mastodon", "matrix", "protonmail", "@". - Searched trans.diy parent domain for `/about` / imprint. - WHOIS on testing.trans.diy (expected proxied / privacy-protected; not decisive). - Cross-ref with diyhrt.wiki, hrt.fm, DIYHRT.Market, HRT Cafe for any named maintainer in that orbit. - r/TransDIY / Mastodon search for "testing.trans.diy". **Why it remains unknown:** no public-facing "about" with a name; no GitHub link; no imprint; opsec norm in this community is pseudonymous maintenance. The site reads as deliberately anonymous. **C5. Closing this gap would require direct outreach via one of the contributing labs.** --- ## 2. Artemis Analytical — everything beyond "US-based" **Question:** Where is Artemis Analytical physically? What instruments does it operate? Who runs it? How do you submit samples? **Why it matters:** Artemis supplied 2 of the 4 published tests on testing.trans.diy. It is the most recent contributor to the registry. **Search strategies tried:** - `"Artemis Analytical" DIY HRT estradiol testing lab` - `Artemis Analytical harm reduction HRT lab USA` - `Artemis Analytical site:reddit.com` - DuckDuckGo + Startpage + Google, multiple phrasings. - Checked the testing.trans.diy profile page: single paragraph of description, empty Website field. - Disambiguated against (unrelated) artemis-analytical.com (Manchester mass-spec spinout) and artemislabs.co.uk (UK environmental lab). **Why it remains unknown:** no website, no imprint, no social presence, no published address. Deliberately opaque. **C5.** --- ## 3. Trans Harm Reduction's commercial contract lab **Question:** Which commercial lab does Trans Harm Reduction outsource GC-MS to? **Why it matters:** identifies the ultimate technique operator and would let anyone verify the GC-MS method conditions (column, derivatisation, library). **Search strategies tried:** - Full fetch of transharmreduction.org, subpages /hrt-testing, /what-we-do, /blood-tests. - Inspected all 14+ result posts for lab attribution text — none appears. - Mastodon (@transharmredux) and Instagram (@transharmreduction) posts — not visible in public snapshots. - GoFundMe metadata for Mouse El Baba — no commercial partner named. **Why it remains unknown:** THR chooses not to identify their contract lab — likely for opsec (some labs dislike association with mutual-aid/trans work). **C5.** --- ## 4. Krause Analytical methodology PDF content **Question:** What specifically does Krause Analytical answer on Finnrick's 10-question methodology questionnaire? **Why it matters:** Krause does ~56% of Finnrick's volume (3,836 of 6,813 tests); its method defines the Finnrick dataset. **Search strategies tried:** - Fetched `https://finnrick.com/labs-contents/peptide_reproducibility_questionnaire_krause.pdf`. - pymupdf extraction → 0 characters (scanned / image-only PDF). - pymupdf4llm extraction → 0 characters. - WebFetch returned binary corruption. - OCR was not attempted in this pass. **Why it remains unknown:** PDF has no text layer; contents require OCR (tesseract, marker-pdf, or similar) to extract. Future reviewers can close this by running `pdftoppm` + `tesseract` or `marker_single` on the file. **C5 for the actual Q&A content; C1 for the PDF's existence.** --- ## 5. Specific HPLC method conditions used by community HRT labs **Question:** What column (part number), mobile phase, flow rate, detection wavelength, and system-suitability data do testing.trans.diy's contributing labs actually use? **Why it matters:** would let a community HPLC operator reproduce their workflow. **Search strategies tried:** - Full crawl of testing.trans.diy, transharmreduction.org, Artemis' (non-existent) site. - Search for "HPLC method" / "column" / "mobile phase" / "%ACN" / "methanol" across scraped corpus. - Inspected all 4 published result pages on testing.trans.diy — numeric assay output only. - Checked whether Janoshik or Finnrick documents an HPLC SOP publicly — no. - Checked whether any community lab has published a peer-reviewed method — not found. **Why it remains unknown:** community labs do not publish validated SOPs. Methods are proprietary to the operator or the contract lab. The detail docs reconstruct "what a USP-aligned method would look like" from USP monographs and peer-reviewed literature (C2-C3), but that is not a direct disclosure. **C5 for the specific community-lab methods.** The research substitutes validated pharmacopoeial analogues. --- ## 6. Finnrick endotoxin price **Question:** What does Finnrick charge for the paid endotoxin add-on? **Why it matters:** feeds the Q2 cost-benefit comparison for in-house vs outsource. **Search strategies tried:** - Full crawl of finnrick.com (home, /about, /methodology, /free-sample-test, /verify, /blog). - Searched for "$" and "endotoxin" + "price" across scraped pages. - Checked r/saferpeptides and the peptideprotocolwiki entries. - Third-party review site peppal.app lists $110, but this was not confirmed on finnrick.com directly. **Why it remains unknown:** Finnrick requires login / submission to see paid-tier pricing. peppal.app is the only public number; treat as C3. **C3 for $110; C5 for an authoritative Finnrick-published number.** --- ## 7. Janoshik live pricing for SARMs, HGH, Package A **Question:** Current janoshik.com prices for SARMs ($170?), HGH ($420?), and Package A ($828?). **Why it matters:** these flow into the cost-benefit breakeven math in `10-cost-benefit/`. **Search strategies tried:** - Fetched janoshik.com (home, /about, /services/). - The `/pricelist/` index URL returned 404 on this pass. - `/pricelist/blind-common-anabolic-steroid-screening-oils/` confirms the $120 oils price (C1). - `/pricelist/endotoxin-analysis-...` confirms $180 endotoxin (C1) with form-factor exclusions. - $170 SARM and $420 HGH were not visible on live pages during the 2026-04-22 audit; these values come from earlier snapshots and from the Peptide Protocol Wiki and graymarket substack reviews. **Why it remains unknown:** Janoshik restructured its /pricelist navigation; some category prices may only be visible through the "Select a Test" submission flow. Values may still be correct but are not re-verifiable on landing pages today. **C3 for SARMs $170, HGH $420, Package A $828.** --- ## 8. USP estradiol valerate monograph specific text **Question:** Exact USP monograph conditions (column, mobile phase, flow, detection, system suitability) for USP Estradiol Valerate Assay. **Why it matters:** the gold-standard validated method for EV HPLC; sanity-check for any community-reconstructed method. **Search strategies tried:** - uspnf.com / online.uspnf.com — paywalled to USP subscribers. - FTP mirror http://ftp.uspbpep.com/v29240/... returned socket errors. - Peer-reviewed articles citing USP monograph conditions (Sigma-Aldrich product pages, Scholars Research Library, Eureka Select) — cross-referenced. - Waters application note for USP Estradiol method on XBridge C18 — cached title accessible, body not fetched. **Why it remains unknown:** the full current USP-NF text is behind paywall. The research captures reconstructed parameters from the open literature (C2-C3), which are self-consistent but not the primary. **C2-C3 for the reconstructed method; C5 for the verbatim USP monograph text.** --- ## 9. Trans Harm Reduction's in-house instrument status **Question:** Did the €6,750 GoFundMe procure a working instrument, and if so which one? **Why it matters:** signals whether THR is moving from donation-funded outsourcing to sustainable in-house work. **Search strategies tried:** - Fetched gofundme.com/f/lab-testing-equipment-for-trans-harm-reduction — goal and total captured, no update on instrument purchase. - Fetched transharmreduction.org — no "we now own" announcement. - Social (Mastodon, Instagram) — post search not systematically done this pass. **Why it remains unknown:** no public announcement of instrument purchase or operational status. **C5.** --- ## 10. Aggregated HRT vendor failure rates **Question:** What fraction of gray-market HRT vendors fail potency or identity on community testing? (Cf. Finnrick's A–F peptide vendor scoring.) **Why it matters:** would anchor the "how bad is the gray market" baseline against which any investment in testing is justified. **Search strategies tried:** - testing.trans.diy has 4 tests, all PASS — too small n for statistics. - Trans Harm Reduction has ~15 published results — narrative summaries only, no aggregated pass-rate. - r/TransDIY/wiki and HRT Cafe publish vendor directories but not aggregated batch-failure numbers. - Janoshik publishes individual COAs on request but no aggregated stats. - diyhrt.market vendor pages give binary "verified/unverified" labels. **Why it remains unknown:** the dataset doesn't exist at scale for HRT the way it does for peptides (Finnrick). Closest analogue: individual batch anecdotes in r/TransDIY discussion threads. **C5 for a meaningful HRT vendor-failure rate; C3 for "most vendors pass potency when tested, small-n."** --- ## 11. JP rFC chapter status (Japanese Pharmacopoeia) **Question:** Has JP published a formal standalone chapter for recombinant Factor C? **Search strategies tried:** - WebSearch "Japanese Pharmacopoeia recombinant Factor C 2026". - ECA Academy GMP news archive — confirms a draft chapter on alternative endotoxin testing; comment period closed 2020-10-30; no formal chapter promulgation surfaced in search. - JP 18 general information sections include G4 (microbiology) — not a standalone rFC chapter. **Why it remains unknown:** JP may have promulgated a chapter post-2020 that isn't well-indexed in English-language sources. Closing this requires direct access to the current JP edition. **C4/C5.** --- ## 12. DEA Form 225 analytical-lab fee for 2026 **Question:** Is the $244/year analytical-lab registration fee still current, or did DEA adjust it for 2025/2026? **Search strategies tried:** - DEA diversion.usdoj.gov registration page — fetched; $244 figure still appears in cached text but page version not date-stamped in this pass. - OMB Form 1117-0012 — last revision data not re-verified. **Why it remains unknown:** DEA fees are adjusted periodically; the research did not re-fetch the current fee schedule from the official DEA page on the 2026-04-22 audit pass. **C3.** --- ## 13. Community-lab aseptic-technique noise floor **Question:** What's the typical false-positive rate for a home USP <71>-style sterility screen with a tabletop LAF hood in a normal room? **Why it matters:** calibrates how to interpret a positive result from the home setup — is it real contamination or your own gloves? **Search strategies tried:** - Pharma literature on field sterility testing — mostly proprietary. - DEF CON / biohacking conference talks — qualitative only. - USP <1211> and <71> discuss compendial environments but not out-of-spec operator contamination rates. **Why it remains unknown:** the numbers exist in pharma QA internal records but not in the public literature. An enterprising community lab could generate them by running parallel positive/negative control media fills over time. **C5.** --- ## 14. Fake-COA prevalence on Janoshik and similar **Question:** What fraction of claimed "Janoshik-tested" vendor listings correspond to genuinely Janoshik-issued COAs? **Why it matters:** a Janoshik-branded COA is the gray market's trust anchor; if a meaningful fraction are forged, the anchor is weaker than the community assumes. **Search strategies tried:** - Peptide Protocol Wiki has documented individual cases (Modern Peptides among others). - Janoshik's own "verify COA" feature lets buyers check a COA ID against janoshik.com's database — this is the direct path to catch forgeries. - No published aggregate number. **Why it remains unknown:** no systematic study, only individual enforcement cases. **C5 for aggregate; C2 for "forged Janoshik COAs exist and are periodically documented."** --- ## Round-2 (deep-dive) additions — 2026-04-23 ### 15. Artemis Analytical principals, accreditation, and submission policy **Question:** Now that artemisanalytical.cc is live, who runs Artemis, what accreditation (if any) does it hold, and does it accept direct customer submissions or only vendor-routed? **Why it matters:** in the round-2 pass the lab newly surfaced a public website (closing part of the old gap). What remains closed is leadership identity and the exact submission flow. **Why it remains open:** the site is minimal as of 2026-04-23; principals, address, and submission channels are not disclosed. WebSearch did not surface a principal name. **C5 for leadership / accreditation; C3 for submission flow (inferred as sample-code-anonymous per the site).** --- ### 16. PPD Labs LLE recipe for **gel-clot** (not kinetic) — matrix-by-matrix **Question:** For each oil matrix (grapeseed, castor, cottonseed, sesame, ethyl oleate, benzyl benzoate blends), what is the validated 2λ spike-recovery behaviour in gel-clot LAL after 1:1 or 1:10 LLE? **Why it matters:** DD2 is explicit that only fractionated coconut oil has published PPD Labs validation, and only for kinetic turbidimetric. Per-matrix gel-clot is an extrapolation. **Why it remains open:** no published source exists. Each home lab that runs this SOP is the first to validate its own matrix. **C5 for everything non-MCT.** --- ### 17. USP Estradiol Valerate monograph literal text **Question:** What are the exact USP-NF monograph method parameters (mobile phase composition, flow, column, wavelength, system suitability thresholds, acceptance limits) for the Estradiol Valerate Injection monograph? **Why it matters:** DD1 reconstructs from secondary sources (Waters application note, peer-reviewed papers). A regulated lab building around DD1 needs the primary text. **Why it remains open:** USP-NF is paywalled ($1,685/year individual, ~$5k institutional). Not subscribed in this research pass. **C5 for verbatim text; C2 for reconstructed parameters.** --- ### 18. MZ Biolabs founder / principal scientist **Question:** Who founded MZ Biolabs and who is the current principal scientist? **Why it matters:** for the standard trust-attribution work (publication record, prior affiliations, disciplinary history). **Why it remains open:** mzbiolabs.com does not name a founder. The `/about` URL returns 404. The `/our-techniques/` page names instruments but not personnel. Google Scholar lookup requires a name. **C5. Closing this gap would require direct outreach (info@mzbiolabs.com) or a Wayback Machine dig for pre-2022 snapshots.** --- ### 19. Peptide Gurus and other bubble-grade vendors — current Finnrick grade **Question:** What grade does Finnrick currently show for Peptide Gurus on Retatrutide (and similar borderline-graded vendors)? **Why it matters:** DD8 §6 names specific vendors at F (Fraud). Grades recalculate. A vendor graded F in the round-1 scrape but E or D now would merit a published correction, given the libel sensitivity. **Why it remains open:** Finnrick grades update on a cadence that exceeds this research cycle. Any static document will drift; the answer is "click through to the live URL + date." **C3–C4 for point-in-time claims; C5 for stable claims.** --- ### 20. Wako PYROSTAR ES-F current Fisher pricing **Question:** What is the current Fisher list price for PYROSTAR ES-F 80T (0.015 EU/mL) and 200T (0.125 EU/mL)? **Why it matters:** DD6 quotes $182.18 and $309.50 from a round-1 scrape. A round-2 re-verification snippet suggested ~$454 for the 200T variant. Price drift of ~40% would change the cost-scenario tables. **Why it remains open:** Fisher's PYROSTAR page is behind a sign-in wall. Institutional account required for verified live price. **C3. Re-verify via a Fisher-logged-in session before relying for budgeting.** --- ### 21. Finnrick total-test denominator **Question:** What is the current total of Finnrick tests across all partners, and does it reconcile to the "6,813" figure cited across round-2 profiles? **Why it matters:** every per-partner percentage (Krause 56.3%, BTLabs 21.2%, etc.) uses 6,813 as the denominator. A 2026-04-23 re-scrape of finnrick.com/labs suggests the named-partner sum is closer to 6,648 (+ Janoshik ~194 = 6,842). Either number has roughly ±5% uncertainty from the timing skew between home-page and partner-page updates. **Why it remains open:** Finnrick's numbers tick up continuously as new tests close and occasionally jump down on retractions (e.g., Nantong GYC). Any static snapshot is already stale. **C3 for any specific denominator; C2 for order-of-magnitude.** --- --- ## Closed in round 3 — 2026-04-23 These items were resolved or substantially narrowed by the round-3 source passes (`research/searches/01-c5-gap-closure.md`, `searches/02-international-services.md`, `searches/03-academic-literature.md`). Each is referenced back to the original gap number and the new confidence tier. | Original gap | Status before | After round 3 | Source | |---|---|---|---| | #1 testing.trans.diy maintainer | C5 | **C2** (pseudonym "sam"; sam@trans.diy; @endocrinemoder) | trans.diy/contact ; testing.trans.diy/contact ; papers.trans.diy/contact (2026-04-23) | | #2 / #15 Artemis Analytical methodology + scale | C5 | **C1** for technique class + contact + cost | artemisanalytical.cc home/how/faq/contact (2026-04-23) | | #4 / #9 THR crowdfunder + instrument | C5 | **C4** — €6,750/€6,800 (99%); status "Donations paused"; 20-month silence on tests | gofundme.com/f/lab-testing-equipment-for-trans-harm-reduction (2026-04-23) | | #5 Krause Analytical leadership | C5 | **C2** — Mark Krause (B.S. 1978; UT Austin grad work; >45 yrs; no PhD); concurrent Austin Analytical, LLC | krauselabs.com/about ; krauselabs.com/krause-bio ; LinkedIn ; Contract Laboratory Network feature (2026-04-23) | | #6 Janoshik real identity | C5 | **C2** for the named team (Peter Magic CEO; Edita Prokešová CSO; Jakub Dobrík MD/CFO); IČO 17668727; reg. 2022-10-25. **C5 still** for legal name behind "Peter Magic"; "Jan Orčík" rumour searched and did NOT corroborate | janoshik.com/about-us/ ; northdata IČO 17668727 ; Peptide Protocol Wiki (2026-04-23) | | #7 / #21 Finnrick denominator | C3 | **C1** — homepage 6,813; partner-sum 6,842; ~0.4% timing-skew | finnrick.com ; finnrick.com/labs (2026-04-23) | | #18 MZ Biolabs founder | C5 | **C2** — Ken Pendarvis (Founder/Owner). **C3** for Nina Ossanna co-founder attribution (Crunchbase only). Current staff: Pendarvis + Jaishree Mali PhD + Jamie Young + Armida Valencia | mzbiolabs.com/mzbiolabs/about-us/ ; Crunchbase (2026-04-23) | | #19 Peptide Gurus current Finnrick grade | C3 | **C1 as of 2026-04-23** — aggregate B (not F); per-product bimodal (Sema B; seven others D/E); 45 samples | finnrick.com/vendors/peptide-gurus (2026-04-23) | | #10 / #11 Older / forgotten DIY HRT testing efforts | C5 | **C4 negative finding** — no named predecessor labs corroborated; "Reliable Caretakers" / "OpenLab" did not surface in search | round-3 search pass | ### New findings introduced in round 3 (not on the original gap list) These reframe the corpus rather than close a previously listed gap: - **International AAS testing precedent** — Zürich DIZ / SaferParty (Switzerland; since Aug 2023; GC-MS; free; 71 samples / 52 clients pilot; 52% counterfeit/substandard) and Anabolenpoli (Spaarne Gasthuis Haarlem; since 2011; UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS; insurance-covered with referral). Neither accepts HRT for gender-affirming care today; both are technically capable. Detail: [`01-existing-services/international-state-funded.md`](01-existing-services/international-state-funded.md) and the source pass `searches/02-international-services.md`. - **Energy Control hormone exclusion** — explicitly does not perform analysis of hormones, steroids, or anabolics. Hard scope boundary. Sharpens the round-1 overview entry. - **Academic literature gap confirmation** — Kennedy et al. 2022 (*Sex Reprod Health Matters*; WHO-commissioned; 3,792 citations screened) found **zero peer-reviewed studies on drug-checking or quality control of DIY hormones**. The closest analogs (Piatkowski 2025a/b on AAS; Magnolini 2022 on black-market AAS; Caudevilla 2016 on Energy Control mail-in cryptomarket testing; Goncalves 2021 on FTIR-vs-HRMS field accuracy) are now incorporated as bounding priors. Full reading list: [`research/literature.md`](literature.md). Source pass: `searches/03-academic-literature.md`. ### Still C5 after round 3 These items remain genuinely unknown and were not closed by the round-3 passes: - **Legal name behind Janoshik's "Peter Magic" pseudonym** — searched specifically; "Jan Orčík" rumour did NOT corroborate; primary sources (janoshik.com, Northdata, Peptide Protocol Wiki) all use the pseudonym. - **Trans Harm Reduction's commercial GC-MS contract lab.** Unchanged from round 1 — opsec choice by THR. - **Artemis Analytical principals + state + accreditation** — methodology and cost are now disclosed; principals are not. - **Specific HPLC method conditions** at any community HRT lab (column part number, mobile phase, flow, wavelength) — Artemis discloses technique class only; Krause discloses instrument families only; Finnrick partner methodology PDFs are image-only and have not been OCR'd. - **Wako PYROSTAR Fisher live pricing** — Fisher product pages now require institutional sign-in. - **USP estradiol valerate monograph verbatim text** — paywalled. - **Finnrick endotoxin price** — login-gated. - **Per-matrix gel-clot LAL spike recovery for non-MCT oils**, **community-lab aseptic-technique noise floor**, **fake-COA prevalence**, **JP rFC chapter status**, **DEA Form 225 2026 fee** — out of scope this pass. --- ## Notes on how to close these - **Direct outreach** (via protonmail / Matrix) to testing.trans.diy maintainer, Trans Harm Reduction, Artemis Analytical would close items 1–3 and possibly 5, 9. - **OCR on the Krause PDF** (local tesseract or marker-pdf run) closes item 4. - **USP-NF subscription** (~$1,500/year institutional) closes item 8 and verifies current chapter cross-references. - **Empirical media-fill study** at a hypothetical community lab closes item 13. - **Scraping Finnrick's per-vendor dataset + a similar effort for HRT** closes item 10. - **WHOIS + stylometric analysis** across testing.trans.diy, diyhrt.wiki, hrt.fm may or may not illuminate item 1 — probably not if opsec is reasonable. None of these gaps individually invalidate the corpus's headline findings; they are the residual uncertainty that remains after the 2026-04-23 round-2 critique pass.