BLACK is a cat's claw tablet brand sold under the name “Advanced Cat's Claw Blend 600mg.” The format is a three-count blister of scored chewable tablets at 200 mg per tablet, marketed as six half-tablet servings, in Blue Raspberry, Strawberry and White Grape. It is one of the very few products in this category whose published certificate of analysis both reports non-detect for the kratom alkaloids on its panel and, on the brand's own document, quantifies a genuine Uncaria marker compound — isorhynchophylline, reported at 0.28 percent.
It is also a certificate with real, documented limits: an alkaloid-only panel, no purity testing, and scope footnotes on the lab's own methods. We think both halves belong in the same post. Below is what we found when we opened the document rather than reading a retailer's summary of it.
Quick summary
| Item | What the documentation shows |
|---|---|
| Format | Chewable scored tablets, 3-count blister, 200 mg per tablet, 600 mg per pack, six half-tablet servings |
| Flavours | Blue Raspberry, Strawberry, White Grape |
| Lab | NN Analytics, San Diego, California |
| Batch | B260216-7, Sample ID 2602-352, received and analysed 2026-02-16, digitally signed 2026-02-17 |
| Measured unit weight | 0.7809 g |
| Uncaria marker | Isorhynchophylline, reported on the brand's own certificate at 0.28% / 2.82 mg per g / 2.20 mg per unit. Total alkaloids 0.28%. |
| Analyte coverage | Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, MGM-16 and corynoxine B are not analytes we can confirm on any panel we hold. No claim about them is supported |
| Accreditation caveat | Footnotes on the certificate place some of its methods outside the laboratory's ISO/IEC 17025 accredited scope |
| Purity testing | Heavy metals, microbials and residual solvents all marked “NT” — not tested |
| Status with us | Reviewed as a sourcing candidate. Not listed. Open items below |
What is on the certificate
The report we read is per-flavour and batch-level, issued by NN Analytics in San Diego, for a sample recorded as “BLACK Blue Razz Tablets.” That is worth pausing on: the sample-name field identifies the actual SKU. Several certificates circulating in this category do not. One of the better-known cat's claw reports in the channel carries the sample name “Unknown tablets” and a lot number of “N/A,” which makes it batch-level in form only.
The main panel is HPLC with diode-array detection, printed under the method group heading “Cat's Claw Alkaloids” with a limit of detection of 0.125 mg per gram. The results on that panel, as reported by the brand's laboratory:
| Analyte | Result |
|---|---|
| 7-hydroxymitragynine | Not detected |
| Mitragynine | Not detected |
| Paynantheine | Not detected |
| Speciogynine | Not detected |
| Speciociliatine | Not detected |
| Mitraphylline | Not detected |
| Rhynchophylline | Not detected |
| Isorhynchophylline | Detected — reported at 0.28% / 2.82 mg/g / 2.20 mg per unit |
The genuinely good part: a reported Uncaria alkaloid
Isorhynchophylline is an oxindole alkaloid that occurs in Uncaria species. The brand's own certificate reports it, quantified, on a batch-level document — which on the brand's account is evidence that there is measurable cat's claw material in the tablet. That sounds like the lowest possible bar. In this category it is not.
We have read certificates for several competing cat's claw products end to end. Multiple ones report Total Alkaloids 0.00 with mitraphylline non-detect and no Uncaria marker of any kind. Those are not fake documents — they are real reports from real labs — but they do not corroborate the composition their labels describe. That gap is the reason we pulled a composition sentence off our own storefront rather than leave it running on the strength of a brand's marketing. Where a brand makes a claim about its own alkaloid content, it is the brand's claim to substantiate, and we attribute it rather than repeat it as our own.
So on the specific question “does this brand's paperwork show demonstrable cat's claw material,” BLACK's certificate answers yes and most of its competitors' certificates do not answer at all. That is the reason the product got a serious look from us. It is the only reason.
What the panel does not cover
This is the part a retailer summary will not tell you, and it is the part that decides how far anyone is entitled to go in describing the product.
Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, MGM-16 and corynoxine B are not analytes we can confirm on any panel we hold — not for this product and not for anything on our own shelf. Where a compound is not on the panel, there is no result to interpret and no claim about it is supported. Not by the brand, not by a retailer, and not by us. A certificate cannot exonerate a compound it never looked for.
That gap matters right now, because the DEA's July 2026 action reaches exactly those compounds. Two Notices of Intent were published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2026: FR Doc 2026-13580 covers 7-hydroxymitragynine above a specified threshold, and FR Doc 2026-13581 covers mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15 and MGM-16 with no threshold at all. The threshold arithmetic is unpacked in the DEA's 7-OH threshold explained. The coverage problem is the one this section is about, and it is not solved by a longer list of non-detects for compounds nobody is worried about.
Accreditation is granted per method, not per laboratory
One thing this document does that most in the category do not is footnote its own scope. Certain methods on the report are marked as validated in-house by the laboratory but not covered by its accreditation, and are therefore not accredited work items.
Read that carefully. The lab holds accreditation. What it does not hold is accreditation for every method printed on the page. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is granted scope by scope, method by method — it is never a blanket property of a laboratory, which is exactly the misreading this category relies on when a box says “tested at an ISO-accredited lab.”
The practical consequence: “accredited laboratory” and “accredited result” are different statements, and only the footnotes tell you which one you are looking at. We work through how to read those footnotes in how to read a COA.
The gaps we could not close
1. No purity data whatsoever. Residual solvents, heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury) and microbials (aerobic plate count, total coliform, STEC, salmonella, yeast and mould) are every one marked NT — not tested, with method-group dates listed as “TBD.” This is an alkaloid-only certificate. For an extract derived from Amazonian bark, heavy metals are not an optional panel. There is an irony worth naming: on purity documentation, several products we regard as having weaker alkaloid reporting are better documented than this one.
2. The published label arithmetic does not reconcile. The ingredient deck published in the channel is headed “per ½-tablet serving” and reads: proprietary Super Tomentosa Extract 100 mg, Quercetin 200 mg, L-Theanine 150 mg, Urolithin A 200 mg, Ascorbic Acid 60 mg, Pyridoxine HCl 10 mg. That sums to 720 mg per half tablet, or 1,440 mg per tablet — against a measured unit weight on the brand's own certificate of 780.9 mg. The stated contents exceed the measured tablet by roughly 1.84 times, which is physically impossible.
The most likely explanation is benign: the amounts are probably per tablet rather than per half tablet, in which case 720 mg of actives inside a 780.9 mg tablet reconciles cleanly and the serving heading is simply wrong. But “probably a heading error” is an inference, not a disclosure, and a retailer that copies channel copy inherits the defect verbatim. The lot number on the certificate is also recorded as “N/A.”
3. The company behind it is difficult to verify. The customer of record on the certificate is a distribution company for which we could not locate a corporate site, a state registration or an FDA facility registration under the name as printed. There is no brand-run wholesale programme, no published price sheet and no brand-direct contact. Retail presence exists across several independent shops, but a documented counterparty does not.
4. A live channel-copy hazard. At least one retailer's BLACK page carries a boilerplate warning block reading “This product contains 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH)” next to unrelated hemp-derivative references. Our assessment is that this is site-wide boilerplate misapplied across a whole catalogue rather than a formulation disclosure, since it directly contradicts the brand's own certificate. It should not be repeated, and it is the kind of thing a buyer should raise with a supplier in writing rather than resolve by assumption.
Where this leaves the product, and us
BLACK's is the most informative cat's claw certificate we have read, and it is still not a document we would list a product on without written answers to four things: an independent panel that actually covers mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, MGM-16 and corynoxine B; accredited methods for the results that currently carry scope footnotes; a full purity panel on a current lot; and a corrected label with reconciled arithmetic. It has not been listed on our shelf, and we would rather say that plainly than let a review read as an endorsement.
We should also be straight about the ceiling this puts on our own language, for every cat's claw product including this one. The certificates we hold report non-detect for 7-hydroxymitragynine, mitragynine, speciociliatine, speciogynine, paynantheine, corynantheidine and mitraphylline. Those results are what let us say “no kratom,” “no mitragynine” and “no 7-OH,” and those are the only three things we say. They do not let anyone describe a product as clear of a compound no panel we hold has tested for. Everything we hold, including the gaps, is published on our certificate of analysis page.
If you are comparing several cat's claw brands rather than assessing this one, the framework is in cat's claw brands in 2026: what to compare. For how the plants and compounds differ in the first place, see cat's claw versus kratom versus 7-OH. What we currently carry is in the cat's claw collection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does BLACK contain kratom or 7-OH?
The brand's certificate for batch B260216-7 reports 7-hydroxymitragynine, mitragynine, paynantheine, speciogynine and speciociliatine as not detected on an HPLC/DAD method with a limit of detection of 0.125 mg per gram. That is a batch-specific result on the analytes listed, not a permanent property of the brand. Ask for the certificate matching the batch code on the pack you are holding.
What does the 0.28% isorhynchophylline figure mean?
On the brand's own certificate, the lab measured 2.82 mg of isorhynchophylline per gram of sample, working out to about 2.20 mg per tablet. Isorhynchophylline is a genuine Uncaria oxindole alkaloid, so on that brand's documentation the figure is evidence that cat's claw material is present. It is a composition finding reported by the brand's laboratory. It is not a statement about effects, and we make none.
Is “600mg” a dose of anything?
No. It is three tablets at 200 mg each, and the 200 mg refers to a proprietary blend declared on the brand's label rather than to any isolated compound. Milligram totals are not comparable between brands in this category because they describe different things on different labels.
Does this certificate clear the product for the compounds in the July 2026 DEA action?
No. Mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, MGM-16 and corynoxine B are not analytes we can confirm on any panel we hold, and where a compound is not on the panel there is nothing to interpret and no claim to make. Separately, accreditation is granted per method, so read the footnotes before treating any single line as an accredited result.
Why publish the problems with a product you might want to sell?
Because the alternative is a category where every brand says “lab tested” and publishes nothing. If we only printed the flattering half of a certificate, our certificate page would be marketing. Background on the plant itself is at what is cat's claw.
These statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. For adults 21+. Consult a qualified healthcare professional before use. Legality depends on the specific product and applicable state law — check the rules where you live. Nothing here is legal advice.