LookCloser.aipublic evidence record

LookCloser record · lc-b6abafe5 · methodology v0.1

Cata-Kor NMN 4-in-1 Complex: The Complete NAD+ Support Formula

Rebuilt from public sources on July 21, 2026.

Result
LOW public verifiability

This product can't be verified from public data Neither good nor bad — the checks below show what this listing publishes and what it withholds. Verifiable products publish more. Evidence availability only; this does not establish safety or effectiveness.

2 of 6 public trust signals found · 1 product-specific concern · $1.33 per serving

The short read

This product lists four active ingredients: NMN, Quercetin, TMG, and Resveratrol, which together total 1,000 mg per serving. The listing claims it is third-party tested, but doesn't name the laboratory, so this specific claim cannot be verified. You can check if the brand's certification for NSF/ANSI 173 covers this exact product by looking up "Cata-Kor NMN 4-in-1 Complex" on NSF’s certified products registry.

Why this result?
We ran this product through public-record checks — label math, barcode registries, FDA recall lists, published lab tests. This banner sums up what those checks could and couldn’t confirm. Green means nothing public contradicted the label — not proof it works or is safe. Gray means the data to check simply isn’t public: a gap, not a verdict. We show the evidence; the conclusion is yours.

Confirmed evidence

What checked out02

These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.

Taken the way the research studied it

Nothing in this listing contradicts how these ingredients were studied (NMN). For example, NMN: trials report raised NAD+ blood markers; whether that produces anti-aging or energy outcomes people care about remains unsettled in humans. Sources: PubMed search: nicotinamide mononucleotide human trial, ClinicalTrials.gov — NMN.

Confirmed

Every ingredient amount is disclosed

The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.

Confirmed

Documented concerns

What needs caution01

These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.

!

“Lab tested” claimed, but no lab or report named

The listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.

Caution

Unresolved public record

What is still missing02

We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.

Reviews not analysed yet

Marketplace rating 4.5★ across 1,194 ratings. Authenticity not analysed: burst, purge and stockout patterns need price/review history.

No data

Listed amounts fit the serving

Technical check only: the panel’s 4 actives sum to 1,000 mg, which fits inside the ≈2,000 mg serving. This means the numbers are physically possible — it does not mean the formula was validated or the contents confirmed.

No data

What to ask and check

What would settle the open questions

Why is this shown?
Everything we couldn’t verify is something a person can still ask about. Rather than leave gaps sitting as dead ends, we turn each one into a specific question — the exact document, citation, or number that would settle it — plus the things you can confirm yourself with the bottle in your hand.

Ask the brand or seller

1

Can you send the certificate of analysis (COA) for the lot number on my bottle?

A real COA names the testing laboratory, the test date, the lot it covers, and what was measured. “Third-party tested” with no document behind it is a marketing sentence.

2

What is the product’s UPC or GTIN?

The barcode is how a product gets matched to outside records — certification registries, label databases, recall data. Without it, almost nothing can be cross-checked.

3

Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?

Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.

4

Where are the ingredients sourced, and where is the product manufactured?

“Made in USA” can describe only the final bottling step. Ask which country the actives came from and whether the facility is audited.

Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.

Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed

1

Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.

Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.

2

Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.

A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.

These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.

The full report is free no signup · no paywall

Every check, claim, label read, dose comparison, registry search, source, and date. Free to read, download, and share.

Read the full report — free →

Want to know if this changes?

Supplements are repeat purchases. Formulas get reformulated, lots get recalled, brands finally publish the lab report they were asked for. We can watch this record and email you only if something changes.

Your address is used for this one purpose. No newsletter, no marketing, no third parties, no tracking pixels — and every email carries a one-click unsubscribe that needs no login. We store the address, the record, and the date. Nothing else.

Record built July 21, 2026. Sources: source listing (live fetch) · brand's own storefront · published independent assays (NOW Foods 2024, SuppCo 2025; brand-level) · PubMed · openFDA · Open Food Facts · NIH DSLD · LookCloser ingredient KB. Evidence-tiered statements of documented fact; conclusions belong to the reader. Beta: this report isn’t yet independently archived — treat it as a well-sourced starting point, not a certificate. Evidence-based corrections welcome.