We read 651 lab certificates looking for terpene panels. One reported figures.

Every hemp shop in this directory that publishes a certificate library we could open: 119 certificates on 21 August 2026, and 532 more on 26 August as the directory grew. Sixteen of the 651 had a terpene panel run; on fifteen of those every compound came back below the limit of quantitation, and one reported figures. The section below on the laboratories is the part worth reading — it turns out the assay is on the menu.

Why we ran this

We had already shown that a cultivar name does not predict its chemistry. If a name cannot carry a profile, then a specific product can only be named when a laboratory has measured that batch and somebody has published the result. So we went and counted who does.

Who we looked at

Hemp retail does not separate shop from brand cleanly: a shop may sell own-label product beside third-party lines, and publishes whatever certificates it holds either way. So we took every shop in this directory with a website — 43 of the 58 listed on 21 August 2026 — and treated each site as the brand whose certificate library it publishes. All 43 were loaded and read.

Those 20 listings resolve to 19 distinct brands, because one brand runs two of the shops. Of the 19, nine publish a library we could open and read. The other ten are listed further down with the reason each one defeated us — a dead link, a folder we cannot enumerate, a lookup form, or a “lab results” link that leads somewhere else entirely.

The remaining 15 of those 58 shops have no website at all and are outside this survey. The directory has grown since; these figures describe the shops as they stood on the survey date and are deliberately not recomputed.

What the readable certificates contain

Every certificate below reports cannabinoid potency. Most add pesticides, heavy metals, microbials, mycotoxins and residual solvents — several run to six or eight pages of contaminant screening. That work is real, it is done to a genuine standard, and it is worth paying for. It is also not what a chemistry-based finder needs.

The column above names the lab that issued most of each brand’s certificates, and several brands use more than one. Counting only the labs we could name with confidence, the 119 certificates were issued by at least eight different laboratories: Excelbis Labs, KCA Laboratories, New Bloom Labs, CannaBusiness Laboratories, FESA Labs, SC Laboratories, Badger Labs and PureLabs. Eight independent laboratories, one consistent answer.

This is a real zero, not a failure to read the files

Every certificate counted above was text-extractable and contained a readable cannabinoid table. We deliberately biased the sample toward flower, where a terpene panel is most likely to have been ordered: 41 flower certificates were in the candidate pool for one brand alone and 19 for another. We counted a panel as present only when three or more named terpenes appeared in the extracted text, so a page that merely explains what terpenes are does not count. The number came back zero anyway.

26 August: 532 more certificates, and the reason

As the directory grew into the rest of North Carolina it reached three more shops that publish a certificate library: The Hemp Doctor, Hemp & Tea Co. and Spice of Life. Between them those libraries list 768 files. We retrieved 745 of them as PDFs; 566 of those yielded extractable text, and 532 of those read as certificates. The rest are photographs of paper, which a person can read and software cannot.

One reported terpene figures. SC Laboratories, method QSP 1192 by gas chromatography with flame ionisation detection: total terpenoids 20.127 mg/g, nineteen compounds quantified, each with its limit of detection and a stated measurement uncertainty. It is a complete panel, not a partial one.

It describes one batch of flower. It cannot describe the cultivar named at the top of it, because the dominant terpene changes between growers for every cultivar we tested. So we have attached it to nothing. No cultivar in this directory has gained a profile from it, and none will from a single batch.

What the laboratories say, which is the useful part

The question worth asking is not which shop had the panel. It is whether the laboratories this channel already uses will run one. Here is every laboratory behind those 566 readable documents.

Three things come out of that table, and none of them is about a shop.

• Kaycha Labs prints “Terpenes — not tested” on nine of the ten documents of theirs we read. The panel is a standing line on their report. It is on the menu and it is not ordered.
• SC Laboratories issued 17 certificates across both surveys — 14 for one shop on 21 August, and 3 for another here, all three of them flower. One of those three has the panel. Same laboratory, same shop, same category of product: one batch was tested for terpenes and two were not. That is what an optional line item looks like.
• At least six of the laboratories we have seen either ran the assay or print it as an option. Fifteen panels came back with every compound below the limit of quantitation — which is a measurement, not an absence. Excelbis Labs, behind 187 of these documents, reported no terpene data on any of them.

The finding itself has not changed: one certificate in 651 reporting figures is not publication, and nobody in this channel publishes terpene panels. What has changed is the reason. It is not that the laboratories cannot run the assay. They can, several do, and at least one prints it on every report as a box left unticked. The panel is available to buy and is not being bought.

Libraries we could not open

These are recorded as unknown, not as negative. A certificate library behind a batch-number lookup or an un-enumerable folder is not a published library in any useful sense — a customer holding a jar cannot check it either — but we did not examine what is inside, so we do not count it.

What it means if you are shopping

That is why our finder hands you a counter card instead of a product name. The card tells you which terpenes suit how you want to feel and gives you the words to ask for them. We would rather send you in able to ask than name something on figures nobody measured.

What it means if you run a shop

This is a gap, not an accusation. Nobody in this market is currently able to answer “what will this one be like?” with a measurement, because the assay is not being ordered. The second survey narrowed that from a problem to a purchase: your laboratory almost certainly runs the panel already. Kaycha prints it on the report as a line they did not run; SC Laboratories ran a full one for a shop that asked. The ask is not “find a laboratory that measures terpenes” — it is “add the terpene panel to the next batch you are already paying to test.” Four brands in the table above already publish complete, well-organised libraries that name the cultivar on the certificate: Apotheca, East Tennessee Hemp Company, Greene Hemp Company and White Label Exotics. They have the laboratory relationship and the publishing habit. They are one line on an invoice away. Here is what that actually involves.

Method, so this can be checked or repeated

• Loaded all 43 directory shop websites in a real browser, since several render their pages with JavaScript and some sit behind a firewall that blocks plain requests.
• Scanned every rendered page for links using certificate, COA or lab-result wording, then rendered each library found, scrolled it to trigger lazy loading and walked every frame.
• Downloaded and read every certificate we could enumerate from each library, up to the per-brand counts in the table above — between 1 and 32 — biasing the sample toward flower, and extracted the text of each one.
• Counted a terpene panel present only when three or more named terpenes appeared in the extracted text, and confirmed each certificate was readable before recording a “no”.

The 26 August pass repeated that method on three more libraries: every file downloaded, text extracted, and a panel counted only where named terpene compounds appeared with figures beside them. A page that merely names the panel to say it was not run counts as “not tested”, not as a panel — an earlier pass of ours matched the word alone and read one laboratory’s nine “not tested” lines as nine panels, which is the exact opposite of what the documents say.

Limitations, stated plainly

• A sample of each library, not every certificate in it — the per-brand counts are in the table above. A brand that routinely ordered panels would be unlikely to have skipped them on all ten or fifteen we read, but this does not prove a brand has never once published one.
• Ten of the brands surveyed on 21 August publish libraries we could not open, and the 26 August pass found three more — The Hemp Farmacy, 704 Hemp and iHemp each link a certificate page from which no certificate could be reached. All thirteen are unknown, not zero.
• This covers what brands publish publicly. A shop may hold terpene data it has never put online, which is exactly what we ask about directly.
• Surveyed on 21 and 26 August 2026. It is a snapshot, and the useful outcome would be for it to go out of date.

What we did with the result

The nine readable libraries are now recorded against those shops’ listings, which carry a badge saying they publish lab certificates and a link straight to the library. The ten pages we could not open are recorded too, in their own category, and are never counted as publishing — a customer holding a jar cannot open them either.

What was NOT imported: any chemistry. No terpene profile was inferred, estimated or derived from a certificate that does not measure one, and nothing here promoted a single cultivar into the finder.