Match a testing-frequency claim to the actual records
Only if the records support the full population and timing the claim describes. Start with the actual batch register, then match a report to each covered batch and compare the report's scope and dates with the published wording. Starting from the reports alone can miss batches with no report. Separate a missing record from a confirmed absence of testing, but do not use either uncertainty to support an absolute claim. Correct or narrow wording when coverage cannot be established.
For: A research-only merchant that publishes a testing-frequency claim and needs to check whether the records cover the batches the claim describes.
Copy the exact claim and every owned location where it appears. Identify which products, suppliers, batches and period the wording describes. A statement on a single product page may have a narrower scope than the same words in a sitewide banner. An internal intention to cover only recent stock does not narrow a public statement that gives no such limit.
Clarify what the business means by tested using the records behind the statement. A report about one characteristic cannot establish every other characteristic a reader might be led to infer. Record any timing promise separately: testing at some point and testing before release are different claims. This is a review of the representation, not instructions for conducting laboratory work.
The FTC's truth-in-advertising guidance calls for truthful, nonmisleading and substantiated advertising across media. It provides the reason to examine the full statement and its context. It does not supply an approved phrase or decide whether your particular wording is lawful.
Build the coverage list from the batch register
Use the merchant's actual batch or lot register as the starting list. Record the product identifier, batch identifier and relevant receipt, release or availability dates already kept by the business. Confirm that the register covers the claimed period. If the register itself has missing periods or unknown entries, label the population incomplete; a perfect match among the available rows cannot prove every batch was covered.
Match each in-scope batch to the report reference using the identifiers printed on the report and any documented cross-reference the business holds. Keep supplier identifiers and merchant identifiers visible where they differ. Similar product names, a recent upload date or several reports in one folder do not establish a batch match.
Count coverage by distinct batches, not by the number of files. Multiple reports for one batch do not fill another batch's gap. A report that lists several batches needs an explicit trace to each relevant entry; do not assume an unlisted batch is included. Preserve the original register and record any reconciliation as a dated correction.
Separate missing evidence, scope gaps and late evidence
For each batch, record whether a matching report is available, whether its subject matches the claim and whether its dates support any timing assertion. A missing report means coverage is unverified from the records reviewed. A record explicitly showing no testing is a different finding. Keep those outcomes separate while withholding an unsupported universal statement.
A report that becomes available later may help establish current evidence coverage, but its upload date does not show when testing occurred. If the claim says testing happened before release, compare the relevant dates on the report with the real release record. An ambiguous or missing date leaves that timing claim unresolved. Do not backdate a report or rewrite the historical register to erase the gap.
Laboratory credentials answer another question. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 addresses competence, impartiality and consistent operation of testing and calibration laboratories. Its public description does not certify a product, authenticate your report or show that the laboratory tested every batch the merchant sold. A laboratory credential cannot replace a missing batch-to-report connection.
Make the wording decision and assign the next update
Where the complete register and matching records support the defined frequency, keep the evidence index with the exact wording and the period reviewed. This supports the coverage review only; report authenticity, technical validity and broader product claims remain separate matters. Where support is limited to particular products, periods or documented batches, revise the claim to accurately express that limit if the business can substantiate it. If even that scope is uncertain, remove the unsupported frequency assertion while the gap is resolved.
Give the claim an owner who checks additions to the batch register before the statement is reused. Record each affected URL, the correction actually published and the publication date. Retain the earlier wording and the findings internally so a later question can be answered honestly; changing today's claim does not establish yesterday's coverage.
A Prism website-review consultation can discuss the public claim, affected pages and the evidence question within an agreed scope. Send the website, research-only products and a summary of the mismatch. Confirm scope, fees and terms before work; the inquiry does not buy a review or establish provider approval. Keep private reports and customer records out of the public form.
Testing-coverage register
Complete this control sheet, then maintain one internal trace per real batch in the claimed population. Use matched, unresolved or contradicted with a reason. Report counts alone cannot establish coverage, and an incomplete batch register prevents a conclusion about every batch.
Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.
Testing-coverage register. The last column is for temporary notes.
Coverage control
Records to compare
How to interpret the finding
Your finding
Claimed frequency and scope
Records to compareExact wording, owned URLs, products, period and any before-release promise.
How to interpret the findingA sitewide or unlimited statement needs evidence for its full stated scope; private assumptions do not narrow it.
Batch population
Records to compareComplete batch register for the claim's products and period; identifier and relevant availability dates.
How to interpret the findingIdentify missing periods before assessing coverage. A partial register cannot support a universal conclusion.
Report references by batch
Records to compareEach batch identifier against the identifier on its report and any documented supplier-to-merchant mapping.
How to interpret the findingMark unmatched identifiers unresolved; do not count repeated reports as additional batches covered.
Subject of the testing claim
Records to compareThe characteristic claimed against the report's stated subject.
How to interpret the findingA matching batch with a report outside the claim's scope remains a support gap.
Timing asserted
Records to compareReport dates against real release dates when the public wording claims testing before release.
How to interpret the findingLate file publication and late testing are different facts; an unknown date cannot support the timing promise.
Coverage gap and affected period
Records to compareMissing reports, explicit absence of testing, mismatches and incomplete register periods recorded separately.
How to interpret the findingChoose the exact claim to correct or remove without describing every gap as proof testing never occurred.
Claim owner and published correction
Records to compareResponsible role, affected pages, approved wording and the date the correction became public.
How to interpret the findingKeep the evidence index current as batches change; a draft correction leaves the public claim unchanged.
These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.
Limits
This is a records-coverage review, not report authentication, laboratory-result validation, product certification or a testing protocol.
FTC guidance does not determine the legality of a specific phrase. ISO/IEC 17025 is a laboratory standard and does not establish the merchant's testing frequency.
Keep sensitive records outside the worksheet and public inquiry. Website consistency does not establish processing eligibility.
FTC truth in advertising — checked 2026-09-28. Advertising across media, including websites, must be truthful, nonmisleading and appropriately substantiated. The guidance does not approve a particular testing-frequency phrase.
ISO/IEC 17025:2017 — checked 2026-09-21. ISO describes requirements for competence, impartiality and consistent operation of testing and calibration laboratories. That description does not establish testing coverage across a merchant's batches.
Prism solutions — checked 2026-09-21. Public support includes storefront review, processing preparation and help with a provider's website questions. Scope, fees and terms are agreed before work; the provider decides eligibility and account terms.
Prism contact — checked 2026-09-21. The form asks for the website, products and question, excluding card details, passwords and customer records. Follow-up is by email; the request does not book an appointment, purchase a service or submit a processing application.