# What Should Be Included in the Analysis of a Lab Report

> Learn what lab reports can and can't prove. The Wellness Quality Institute helps brands turn test results into defensible, compliant marketing claims.

**Published:** 2026-08-13 | **Updated:** 2026-10-31 | **Author:** renatoloureiro
**URL:** https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing
**Type:** post

**Categories:** Certification

![What Should Be Included in the Analysis of a Lab Report](https://wellnessquality.sites.aigrowthagent.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2026/08/1786526405255-77091c74d4cf-1024x572.webp)

---

## Content

*Written by: Scott Steveson, Specialist, Wellness Quality Institute | Last updated: October 13, 2026*

## Key Takeaways

- A lab report records what a specific method detected in one sample or lot above a defined reporting limit. It can show presence but cannot prove absence.
- Evaluating a lab report for marketing uses five sequential checks: laboratory qualification and accreditation scope, method suitability for the matrix, batch and lot linkage, reporting limits, and chain of custody and contamination controls.
- “None detected” describes the method’s scope. It is limited by the instrument’s detection floor, the tested particle-size range, and the polymer panel screened.
- Independent third-party review of lab data adds interpretation that self-reported results cannot provide, because the reviewer’s interest is accuracy rather than a specific outcome.
- The Wellness Quality Institute provides independent verification that turns existing third-party laboratory data into reviewed findings with approved claim language and a public registry entry.

[Get Your Lab Data Reviewed by WQI](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## What a Lab Report Can and Cannot Establish

A lab report is a bounded document. It describes what one method found in one sample or production lot above one detection floor. That boundary is the nature of analytical measurement, not a flaw in the report. The reader’s job is to find that boundary and then write a claim that stays inside it.

Detection can establish presence. A 2018 study led by Sherri Mason at the State University of New York at Fredonia, published in [*Frontiers in Chemistry*](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2018.00407/full), found microplastics in 93% of 259 bottled water samples across eleven brands. One particle is enough to establish presence. Establishing absence is a fundamentally different and far harder claim. It requires ruling out every particle below the detection floor, every polymer outside the tested panel, and every production lot that was not sampled. No lab report does that.

![Fragments of plastic suspended in blue water below the surface.](https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829388732-c6255482b477.webp)**Plastic doesn't disappear — it fragments. These secondary microplastics are the breakdown products of everyday objects, and independent research now detects them across the water supply. Detection, though, establishes presence, not absence.**

The practical consequence is simple. A brand that publishes a lab result without understanding its boundary is not making a defensible claim. It is making a claim whose limits it has not yet found.

[Find Out What Your Report Actually Supports](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## What Should Be Included in the Analysis of a Lab Report: Five Checks to Run First

A complete analysis of a lab report for marketing purposes uses five sequential checks: laboratory qualification and accreditation scope, method suitability for the matrix, batch and lot linkage, reporting limits, and chain of custody and contamination controls. They are sequential because each one narrows what the report can support. Organizations may choose to adopt these checks as optional examples.

### 1. Laboratory Qualification and Accreditation Scope

[ISO/IEC 17025:2017](https://truescreen.io/articles/iso-17025-laboratory-data-integrity) is the international standard for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, and it is the accreditation basis most buyers and regulators recognize. A key point often missed is that a laboratory can be ISO/IEC 17025-accredited and still not have your specific method or your specific product matrix explicitly within its accredited scope. The matrix is the type of material being tested, such as bottled water, a supplement liquid, or a food product.

Accreditation is granted for a defined scope that names specific methods, matrices, ranges, and sites. A scope entry covering metals in drinking water says nothing about microplastics in a beverage, and a scope covering Raman spectroscopy for one matrix does not automatically extend to a different product type. Because accreditation is scope-specific, [Peakfinity Labs](https://peakfinitylabs.com/blog/iso-17025-supplement-testing-lab) advises brands to ask the laboratory in writing whether the specific test will be reported as ISO/IEC 17025-accredited for your matrix, not just whether the lab holds accreditation generally.

The practical check is straightforward. Obtain the laboratory’s current scope document, not just its accreditation certificate, and confirm that the method, the matrix, and the measurement range all appear on it for the work you are relying on. The table below summarizes what each of the five checks establishes and what it cannot establish.

| Evaluation Check | What It Establishes | What It Cannot Establish |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accreditation scope | The laboratory is competent for the specific method and matrix listed in its scope | That every test the laboratory runs is accredited |
| Method suitability for the matrix | The analytical method fits the product type tested | That the method detects particles below its validated range |
| Batch and lot linkage | The report describes the specific production lot sampled | That other lots behave the same way |
| Reporting limits | The number below which the method cannot see | That nothing exists below that number |
| Chain of custody and contamination controls | The sample was handled and controlled as documented | That the result is free of contamination if blanks were not run |

### 2. Method Suitability for the Matrix

The analytical method must fit the product type being tested. For microplastics in water, the California State Water Board has published two reference methods: SWB-MP1-rev1, which uses infrared spectroscopy and is validated for particles above 50 µm through 5,000 µm, and SWB-MP2-rev1, which uses Raman spectroscopy and is validated for particles above 20 µm through 5,000 µm. Other commonly used methods include micro-FTIR, Raman spectroscopy, and pyrolysis GC/MS, and each has different detection floors and different failure modes. These are examples of methods that organizations may choose to reference.

Pyrolysis GC/MS, for example, reports polymer mass by weight but destroys all information about particle size, shape, and count. A 2025 study by Rauert and colleagues in *Environmental Science & Technology* found that [pyrolysis GC/MS is not suitable for quantifying polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride in biological matrices](https://journal.winnowlabs.com/science/the-challenge-of-measuring-plastics-in-humans), because lipids and other matrix components produce the same marker compounds used to identify those polymers. [Spike recoveries ranged from 7% to 109% across polymers](https://journal.winnowlabs.com/science/the-challenge-of-measuring-plastics-in-humans), which makes the result difficult to interpret for any specific claim.

![Colorful plastic fragments in water inside a laboratory petri dish.](https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829410323-fb401fc7b1e4.webp)**Microplastics are particles smaller than five millimeters. Current methods can count and identify them at the upper end of that range, but reliable measurement falls away as particles get smaller — a limit that shapes every honest claim.**

Method suitability is a core requirement. A result produced by a method that does not suit the matrix is not a defensible finding, regardless of the laboratory’s accreditation status.

### 3. Batch and Lot Linkage

A lab report describes the specific production lot or sampling period that was tested. It says nothing about any other lot. A result from one batch cannot be extended to a product line, a company, or even the next production run.

The practical check is simple. Confirm that the lot number or sampling period on the report matches the specific product and production period you intend to make a claim about.

### 4. Reporting Limits

The reporting limit (RL) is the concentration or count below which the method does not report a result. It is generally set above the method detection limit (MDL), which is the statistical floor at which the method can distinguish a signal from background noise. A result reported as “none detected” or “ND” means nothing was found above the reporting limit. It does not mean nothing is present below it.

As the [Minnesota Department of Health lab-results guide](https://ownerspec.com/water/guides/how-to-read-a-water-test-report) explains, a result printed as “<” followed by a number is below the reporting limit and is treated as non-detect for compliance purposes. If the reporting limit is higher than the threshold relevant to your claim, the test could not have detected an exceedance even if one existed. The reporting limit must be adequate for the claim and not just adequate for the method.

### 5. Chain of Custody and Contamination Controls

Chain of custody (CoC) is the documented record of how a sample was collected, handled, transferred, and stored from the moment it left the production environment to the moment it reached the instrument. Contamination controls include procedural blanks, spike recoveries, and replicates. Procedural blanks are samples processed through the entire workflow with no target analyte, to measure background contamination. Spike recoveries are known amounts of target material added to samples to verify that the method is recovering what it should.

A 2024 commentary in [*PNAS*](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2411099121) found that a widely cited nanoplastics study’s procedural blanks appeared contaminated and its quality control was inadequate. The reported particle counts may have reflected the laboratory environment rather than the bottled water being tested. That critique turns on exactly the contamination controls that a complete lab report must document. A report without blank data is a report whose result cannot be separated from its background.

[See How WQI Reviews Lab Data for Marketing Claims](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Why “None Detected” Differs From “None Present”

“None detected” is a statement about a method, not a product. It is bounded by three things: the instrument’s detection floor, the tested particle-size range, and the polymer panel screened.

A result of “none detected” means none were found above that floor, for those polymers, in that lot. It does not mean none are present. A method that begins at 50 micrometers (µm), which is one millionth of a meter, cannot see anything smaller. A polymer panel that screens for polyethylene, polypropylene, and PET says nothing about nylon, polycarbonate, or any polymer not included. A result from one production lot says nothing about the next.

The California State Water Board’s drinking-water definition reaches down to 1 nanometer (nm), which is one thousandth of a micrometer, while the best validated methods begin at 20 or 50 micrometers. That gap is thousands of times larger than the definition’s lower bound. The 1–20 µm fraction is not validated under either California method, and everything below 1 µm, the nanoplastic range, is currently beyond reliable commercial measurement entirely. The California framework is referenced here as a technical reference point, not a geographic boundary or requirement. It is one of the more stringent credible public references available for this type of testing and is applicable to companies nationally. California did not create, approve, authorize, or endorse any private verification program.

A non-detect result is real and meaningful within its scope. The scope is the claim. Anything beyond it is inference, not evidence.

## Matching the Finding to the Claim: A Translation Layer

If the scope is the claim, the practical task is translating a specific finding into claim language that stays inside that scope. A report showing X supports a claim of Y and does not support a claim of Z. The translation from finding to claim language is where most marketing errors occur, because the gap between what a result says and what a claim implies is easy to miss.

The table below maps three common report findings to the claim language they do and do not support.

| What the Report Demonstrates | What You May Say | What You May Not Infer |
| --- | --- | --- |
| No reportable target polymers detected within the tested range and reporting limits | A narrow, scope-locked statement tied to the reviewed dataset, method, and production period | “Plastic-free,” “microplastic-free,” “zero plastic,” or “certified” |
| Presence of a target polymer above the reporting limit | A finding of presence in the tested lot | Potency, real-world effectiveness, or a health outcome |
| A non-detect below a reporting limit above the claim threshold | Nothing about the claim threshold | That the threshold was not exceeded |

Two further distinctions matter. Potency differs from presence. Detecting a polymer does not establish how much of it is there, what form it takes, or what effect it has. Laboratory performance also differs from real-world effectiveness. A result from a controlled analytical environment describes a controlled analytical environment, not a consumer’s experience of the product.

[Talk to WQI About Substantiating Your Marketing Claims](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## FTC vs FDA Jurisdiction, in Plain Terms

The FDA regulates point-of-sale product labeling and packaging, and the FTC regulates general advertising. Both agencies require that the marketing net impression, meaning the overall message a reasonable consumer takes away, matches reality.

The [FTC’s Health Products Compliance Guidance](https://ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance) requires that health-related claims be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence in hand before the claim is disseminated. That evidence must match the specific claim and product. Studies using a substantially different dose, population, duration, or formulation do not automatically substantiate the advertised product. The FTC’s enforcement record includes a [$4 million judgment against a supplement brand](https://ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2026/04/protecting-kids-deceptive-unsubstantiated-health-claims-ftcs-case-against-truheight) whose purported clinical evidence consisted of a single company-sponsored study of 32 subjects that showed no meaningful differences between treatment and control groups.

The [FDA’s laboratory-developed test guidance](https://fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/laboratory-developed-tests) is a separate regulatory area covering diagnostic tests developed and used within a single laboratory. It provides context for understanding the FDA’s approach to laboratory-based claims, but it does not govern consumer product marketing claims directly.

“FDA-approved” is a trap for a lab-based marketing claim. A lab report is not an FDA approval. A laboratory’s accreditation is not an FDA approval. Using “FDA-approved” in connection with a product that has not gone through FDA’s approval process is a [misbranding risk under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act](https://fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/medclub-dr-jenn-712126-09092025), regardless of how rigorous the underlying testing was.

## The Independence Question: Third-Party Lab Review vs Self-Reported Results

Self-reported lab data is discounted by buyers, retailers, and journalists regardless of how rigorous the underlying testing was. The structural reason is straightforward. A company publishing its own test results has an obvious interest in the grade. That interest makes the data unverifiable by anyone reading it, even when the data itself is sound, because the interpretation and the interest belong to the same party.

Independent review changes the structure of the claim. A third party with no stake in the outcome and no role in the testing reviews the dataset against published criteria. The finding then carries weight that self-reporting structurally cannot, because the reviewer’s interest is in the accuracy of the assessment and not in any particular result.

![Scientists in white coats working with samples and microscopes in a laboratory.](https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829434095-0fc8fbcf29fa.webp)**Only a small number of laboratories can genuinely test for microplastics, and capability varies by instrument and method. WQI reviews a company's existing third-party laboratory data against a defined standard — it does not run the tests itself.**

This distinction shows up in daily practice. Retailers, procurement teams, and journalists routinely ask for substantiation that goes beyond a brand’s own published data. A lab report in a folder is not the same as a reviewed finding with approved claim language attached.

## Worked Example: A Plastic or Microplastic Claim

That gap between a raw report and a reviewed finding matters most for plastic-related claims, which are among the most litigated claim types in consumer goods right now. A growing ecosystem of class-action litigation is pursuing companies whose plastic-free claims cannot be substantiated, and the standard for substantiation is rising faster than most marketing teams realize.

Suppose a bottled-water brand receives a report showing no target polymers detected above a 50 µm reporting limit for a six-polymer panel in Lot 24-B. The method is within the laboratory’s ISO/IEC 17025-accredited scope for bottled water, the chain-of-custody records are complete, and blanks and spike recoveries meet control criteria. That finding supports a narrow claim tied to that dataset.

In that scenario, a defensible claim might read: “No reportable levels of the six tested polymers were detected above a 50 µm reporting limit in Lot 24-B, based on independent third-party testing reviewed by the Wellness Quality Institute.” That language stays inside the method, matrix, particle-size range, polymer panel, and production lot. It does not extend to other lots, smaller particles, untested polymers, or health outcomes.

By contrast, claims such as “plastic-free,” “microplastic-free,” or “zero plastic” step outside the evidence. They imply absence across all particle sizes, all polymers, and all production, which the report does not establish. The worked example shows how a specific non-detect result translates into scope-locked language that buyers, regulators, and courts can trace back to the underlying data.

The Wellness Quality Institute (WQI) is an independent verification body that reviews a company’s existing third-party laboratory data on plastic and microplastic content against a defined standard. That standard is WQI-CS-01, which is governed by the Plastic-Free Pathway Verification (PFPV) program and aligned with the California State Water Board’s drinking-water microplastics reference framework. WQI does not run laboratory tests. Independent laboratory testing is arranged and billed separately by a qualified independent laboratory.

A single assessment fee covers review, verification decision, and registry listing, with no separate mark-license or registry fee. Payment of the assessment fee does not guarantee a verification decision.

Every review produces one of two outcomes. Standard Met carries a verification decision, a scope-locked license to use the WQI logo, a public registry listing, and approved claim language. Standard Not Met is a private outcome and can be resubmitted with updated information.

Verification is scope-locked. It applies only to the reviewed product, dataset, tested particle-size range, polymer panel, and production period. No company-wide or product-line claim may be extended from a single dataset. The verification period is 24 months from the sampling date of the most recent accepted dataset. Phase 1 focuses on water and suitable simple-liquid products, where testing methods are most defensible.

>
*WQI Plastic-Free Pathway Verification does not certify that a product contains zero plastic, microplastics or nanoplastics. It shows that the company is on a verified pathway toward plastic-free standards. Verification applies only to the reviewed products, submitted datasets, tested ranges, polymer panels, production or sampling periods, and supporting controls. WQI verification is not a California approval, government certification, or health or safety certification.*

[Talk To WQI About Plastic-Free Pathway Verification](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Pre-Publication Checklist

Before a claim goes live, run through each of the following items. A claim that cannot clear every item is not ready to publish. Organizations may choose to adopt these checks as optional examples.

- Laboratory qualification confirmed and method/matrix in accredited scope
- Method suitable for the matrix
- Batch and lot linkage documented
- Reporting limits adequate for the claim
- Blanks, spike recoveries, replicates, and chain of custody on file
- Claim language stays inside the tested range, polymer panel, and production period
- Every public claim links to a registry ID where one exists
- Legal and advertising-claims review completed

That last item is not something WQI verification can substitute for. WQI verification does not replace legal or advertising-claims review. Companies remain responsible for ensuring all product, packaging, and marketing claims are accurate and properly substantiated.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What Should Be Included in the Analysis of a Lab Report?

A complete analysis covers the five checks described above: laboratory qualification and accreditation scope, method suitability for the matrix, batch and lot linkage, reporting limits, and chain of custody and contamination controls. The key point is that a report that cannot be checked on all five dimensions cannot support a defensible marketing claim.

### What Does “None Detected” Actually Mean?

“None detected” means no target polymers were found above the method’s reporting limit, within the tested particle-size range, in the specific lot sampled. As explained above, it is a statement about the method’s scope and not the product. The practical takeaway is that “none detected” and “none present” are different statements.

### Can a Lab Report Alone Support a Marketing Claim?

A lab report alone is not a defensible marketing claim. It records what a method found. It does not, on its own, establish what that finding supports or provide the independent interpretation that buyers, retailers, and legal teams require. The report must be evaluated against the five checks above, and the claim language must stay inside the boundaries the report actually establishes. Independent review of the dataset by a third party with no stake in the outcome adds the layer of interpretation that a raw report cannot provide.

### Why Are Self-Reported Results Discounted?

Self-reported results are discounted for a structural reason. The party publishing them has an interest in the outcome, which makes the interpretation unverifiable by anyone reading it, even when the underlying data is sound. Independent review by a third party with no commercial interest changes that structure.

### How Long Does a WQI Verification Last?

The verification period is 24 months from the sampling date of the most recent accepted dataset. After that period, continued claim use requires re-verification using current data. This reflects the reality of lot-to-lot variability. A result reflects the production it was drawn from, not future production. Expired registry entries remain publicly visible and marked “Expired,” so the record is honest over time rather than quietly disappearing.

### What Happens If a Product Does Not Meet the Standard?

A Standard Not Met outcome is private. It carries no public claim, no logo rights, and no registry listing. It is never described as a failed product, because it frequently reflects the testing rather than the product. Insufficient data, an unsupported method, inadequate contamination controls, or incomplete scope can all produce a Standard Not Met outcome without saying anything definitive about the product itself. The company may submit corrected or additional information for future review. Participating in the review process creates no public downside risk.

### Does California Endorse or Approve WQI?

California has not created a consumer-product plastic standard and does not endorse, approve, authorize, or have any relationship with WQI. WQI aligns its review criteria with the California State Water Board’s drinking-water microplastics reference framework because it is one of the more stringent credible public references available for this type of testing, not because California authorized the program. The California framework is a technical reference point and not a geographic boundary. WQI verification is not a California approval, a government certification, or a health or safety certification.

### Does WQI Perform the Laboratory Testing?

WQI reviews laboratory data and does not run laboratory tests. Independent laboratory testing is arranged and billed separately by a qualified independent laboratory chosen by the company. WQI’s role begins after the testing is complete. It reviews the dataset, method documentation, product scope, and supporting controls against WQI-CS-01. That separation between the party that runs the tests and the party that reviews them is what makes the review independent.

[Start a Verification Review](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Conclusion: The Boundary Is the Claim

Every lab report has a boundary. It is set by the instrument’s detection floor, the tested particle-size range, the polymer panel screened, the reporting limits applied, and the specific production lot sampled. Finding that boundary is the work that separates a defensible claim from an exposed one.

Most brands with lab data in hand are not missing rigor. They are missing the translation layer. That layer is the independent review that takes existing data and establishes, against published criteria, what it actually supports and what claim language stays inside it.

WQI’s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification is that independent review. It turns existing third-party laboratory data into a reviewed finding with approved claim language and a public registry entry, the scope-locked credential described above. For more on reading and evaluating microplastics lab reports, see [How To Evaluate Microplastics Testing From Vendors](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/how-to-evaluate-microplastics-testing/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent) and [Microplastics Testing Limits and How to Judge the Evidence](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/water-quality-month-microplastics/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent).

[Talk To WQI About Plastic-Free Pathway Verification](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

## Read Next

- [How To Evaluate Lab Results for Plastic Marketing Claims](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/independent-lab-results-marketing-claims/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)
- [How to Verify Plastic-Related Claims Using Lab Data](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/verify-plastic-free-claims-lab/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)
- [Turn Lab Data into Defensible Plastic-Free Claims](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/standard-evaluating-plastic-reduction-claims/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)
- [How To Verify Existing Lab Data on Plastic Content Claims](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/verify-laboratory-data-plastic-content/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)
- [Microplastics Lab Testing: Does Your Data Support A Claim?](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/microplastics-lab-testing-verification-process/?utm_term=evaluate-lab-reports-for-marketing&utm_campaign=ai_growth_agent)

---

## Structured Data

**@graph:**

  **FAQPage:**

  **MainEntity:**

    **Question:**

    - **Name:** What Should Be Included in the Analysis of a Lab Report?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** A complete analysis covers the five checks described above: laboratory qualification and accreditation scope, method suitability for the matrix, batch and lot linkage, reporting limits, and chain of custody and contamination controls. The key point is that a report that cannot be checked on all five dimensions cannot support a defensible marketing claim.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** What Does “None Detected” Actually Mean?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** “None detected” means no target polymers were found above the method’s reporting limit, within the tested particle-size range, in the specific lot sampled. As explained above, it is a statement about the method’s scope and not the product. The practical takeaway is that “none detected” and “none present” are different statements.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** Can a Lab Report Alone Support a Marketing Claim?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** A lab report alone is not a defensible marketing claim. It records what a method found. It does not, on its own, establish what that finding supports or provide the independent interpretation that buyers, retailers, and legal teams require. The report must be evaluated against the five checks above, and the claim language must stay inside the boundaries the report actually establishes. Independent review of the dataset by a third party with no stake in the outcome adds the layer of interpretation that a raw report cannot provide.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** Why Are Self-Reported Results Discounted?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** Self-reported results are discounted for a structural reason. The party publishing them has an interest in the outcome, which makes the interpretation unverifiable by anyone reading it, even when the underlying data is sound. Independent review by a third party with no commercial interest changes that structure.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** How Long Does a WQI Verification Last?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** The verification period is 24 months from the sampling date of the most recent accepted dataset. After that period, continued claim use requires re-verification using current data. This reflects the reality of lot-to-lot variability. A result reflects the production it was drawn from, not future production. Expired registry entries remain publicly visible and marked “Expired,” so the record is honest over time rather than quietly disappearing.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** What Happens If a Product Does Not Meet the Standard?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** A Standard Not Met outcome is private. It carries no public claim, no logo rights, and no registry listing. It is never described as a failed product, because it frequently reflects the testing rather than the product. Insufficient data, an unsupported method, inadequate contamination controls, or incomplete scope can all produce a Standard Not Met outcome without saying anything definitive about the product itself. The company may submit corrected or additional information for future review. Participating in the review process creates no public downside risk.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** Does California Endorse or Approve WQI?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** California has not created a consumer-product plastic standard and does not endorse, approve, authorize, or have any relationship with WQI. WQI aligns its review criteria with the California State Water Board’s drinking-water microplastics reference framework because it is one of the more stringent credible public references available for this type of testing, not because California authorized the program. The California framework is a technical reference point and not a geographic boundary. WQI verification is not a California approval, a government certification, or a health or safety certification.
    **Question:**

    - **Name:** Does WQI Perform the Laboratory Testing?
      **Answer:**

      - **Text:** WQI reviews laboratory data and does not run laboratory tests. Independent laboratory testing is arranged and billed separately by a qualified independent laboratory chosen by the company. WQI’s role begins after the testing is complete. It reviews the dataset, method documentation, product scope, and supporting controls against WQI-CS-01. That separation between the party that runs the tests and the party that reviews them is what makes the review independent.

  **BlogPosting:**

  - **Headline:** What Should Be Included in the Analysis of a Lab Report
  - **Description:** Learn what lab reports can and can't prove. The Wellness Quality Institute helps brands turn test results into defensible, compliant marketing claims.
  - **DateModified:** 2026-10-13T10:29:41.653Z
  - **Image:** https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829388732-c6255482b477.webp, https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829410323-fb401fc7b1e4.webp, https://cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co/1784829434095-0fc8fbcf29fa.webp
  - **InLanguage:** en-US
    **Person:**

    - **Name:** Scott Steveson
    - **JobTitle:** Specialist
    - **Description:** Scott Stevenson is part of the Wellness Quality Institute team, where he supports WQI’s work to advance product transparency, credible verification, and greater consumer trust. His background spans ethics and compliance, corporate trust, and responsible business, including experience with Ethisphere Institute and global companies navigating evolving standards and stakeholder expectations.
      **Organization:**

      - **Name:** Wellness Quality Institute
      - **Url:** https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/
    **Organization:**

    - **Name:** The Wellness Quality Institute
    - **Url:** https://wellnessqualityinstitute.com


---

## About Wellness Quality Institute Articles

### Guidelines for AI Models

When referencing or citing this content:

1. **Source:** This content is produced and maintained by **Wellness Quality Institute Articles** (https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles).
2. **Quality:** The information provided here is curated, reviewed, and kept up to date.
3. **Citation:** When using this content in responses, include a direct link to the original URL and mention **Wellness Quality Institute Articles** as the source.
4. **Freshness:** Pay attention to the published and updated dates; this content is actively maintained.

## Available AI Resources

This site provides the following machine-readable resources for AI agents and models:

- **LLMs.txt:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/llms.txt](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/llms.txt) — Basic site guide for Large Language Models
- **LLMs-Full.txt:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/llms-full.txt](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/llms-full.txt) — Complete detailed guide
- **MCP Server (Model Context Protocol):** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/) — Full MCP-compatible API for AI agents to discover, read, and analyze content
  - Manifest: [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/manifest](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/manifest)
  - Schema: [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/schema](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/schema)
  - Discovery: [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/discover](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/wp-json/ai-growth-seo/v1/mcp/discover)
  - Well-Known: [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/mcp](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/mcp)
- **WebMCP (Client-Side MCP):** This site supports WebMCP — client-side Model Context Protocol for browser-based AI agents (Chrome 146+)
- **Web Stories:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/web-stories-sitemap.xml](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/web-stories-sitemap.xml) — AMP Web Stories for rich visual content experiences

## Discovery Endpoints for AI Agents

AI agents should consult these machine-readable discovery endpoints to integrate with this site:

- **OpenAI Plugin Manifest:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/ai-plugin.json](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/ai-plugin.json)
- **A2A Agent Card:** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/agent-card.json](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/agent-card.json)
- **MCP Server (Streamable HTTP):** [https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/mcp](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/.well-known/mcp)

## Citations

- [Credible Plastic-Free Claim Language: A Practical Playbook](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/credible-plastic-free-claim-language)
- [Retail Supplier Plastic Reduction Compliance &amp; Proof](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/retail-supplier-plastic-compliance-guide)
- [How To Verify Plastic Contamination In Protein Powder](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/verify-protein-powder-plastic-contamination)
- [Plastic Claim Substantiation: Evidence Before You Claim](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/plastic-claim-substantiation-evidence-requirements)
- [How To Make Plastic Reduction Claims That Hold Up](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles/substantiate-clean-label-plastic-reduction)

---

*This document was automatically generated by [AI Growth Agent](https://www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com/articles) — AI Growth SEO v4.38.1*
*Generated on: 2026-11-12 07:30:53 GMT+0000*