Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Worth separating that from compounded supply, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
One thing that is still open after sophie_paris’s answer:
Why a shortage listing created a legal pathway at all, since a shortage is a supply fact rather than a permission?
newstart_MO said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL Biochemnewstart_MO said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Agreed, and the enforcement dates were staggered by category — 503A first, 503B a few weeks later — because outsourcing facilities have manufactured inventory and clinic contracts to unwind while a 503A makes to order.