We started from academic papers, market reports and regulatory notices, all of them public, and turned them into a set of linked pages a team could read and question. In plain terms, it took four steps.
01 - Gather the sources
We collected the public papers, market reports and regulatory notices on peptides, 23 sources in all.
02 - Read and organise
Each source was read once, carefully, and its facts were sorted into pages for each product, company, market and idea, so the same kind of page always answers the same kind of question.
03 - Link and compare
A peptide mentioned in a clinical paper, a market report and a regulator’s notice gets one page with all three sources side by side. Where sources disagree, the page says so.
04 - Check before saving
Every claim was checked against its source before it was kept. Claims about regulatory status had to come from the regulator itself, and anything resting on a single weak source was flagged instead of stated as fact.
How we kept it honest
In this build, the checks caught a clinical-trial statistic that was circulating in news coverage but could not be found in any primary source. It was kept out of the facts and marked as unverified.
The result: 146 pages: 50 products, 39 explanations of ideas and methods, 10 companies and regulators, 7 market overviews and 23 source summaries. This was the first build, and it took three months while the method was being worked out. Later samples took about a day each.