Category guide
How to read a prostate supplement label
This page is about the category rather than about one product. It sets out what a prostate supplement label has to show, which figure on it matters most and why it is not the milligram figure, which plant part decides what a row can be compared with, what the evidence on each main ingredient actually says, and when to stop reading labels and make an appointment.
Read the panel, multiply out every standardisation, then read the plant parts. A Supplement Facts panel must give the serving size, the servings per container and the name and quantity of every dietary ingredient. A standardisation percentage makes a botanical comparable in a way a milligram figure cannot: 200 mg at 3% delivers less of the measured constituent than 100 mg at 13%. And urinary symptoms have causes worth identifying with a clinician.
- Panel requirements
- Eleven, listed
- The figure that matters most
- A standardisation
- The sum to do first
- Amount × percentage
- Plant parts that differ
- Nettle root and leaf
- Main ingredients assessed
- Seven
- Largest trial in the category
- CAMUS, 369 men
- Questions to ask
- Twelve
- When to see a clinician
- Six reasons
What this category is, and what it may claim
“Prostate support”, “urinary flow” and “prostate health” are marketing categories rather than regulatory ones. What they share is a set of plants with long reputations and mixed evidence, and a claim problem: the thing a buyer usually wants is a medical outcome, and a dietary supplement is not allowed to promise one.
The line that governs every label here runs between a structure/function claim and a disease claim. A structure/function claim says a product supports a normal body structure or function — promotes healthy urinary flow — and supplements may make those. A claim to treat, prevent or mitigate a condition is a drug claim and is not permitted. Benign prostatic hyperplasia is a disease state with a name, which is why phrases about prostate size sit closer to the line than phrases about comfort.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
The disclaimer a structure/function claim requires
That disclaimer is the most useful piece of punctuation on a supplement page. Find it, then find the asterisks it belongs to, then look for any claim on the page sitting outside them. A claim nobody chose to asterisk is a claim nobody chose to cover, and it is usually the strongest one on the page. The benefits page reads this product’s three label claims one at a time against that rule.
What a Supplement Facts panel must show
Eleven things, and the reason each one matters to you rather than to a regulator. The rule is 21 CFR 101.36, and FDA’s own labeling guide puts the central requirement plainly: you must list the names and quantities of dietary ingredients present in your product.
| Required | What it looks like | Why it matters to a reader |
|---|---|---|
| The heading Supplement Facts | A box, set off from the rest of the label with a hairline rule. | It is the only part of the label with rules attached to its contents. If it is not there, nothing else on the bottle is standing in for it. |
| Serving size | The amount customarily consumed at one time, in the unit the product comes in. | It sets the scale of every figure underneath it. A two-capsule serving halves every declared amount for somebody taking one capsule. |
| Servings per container | How many servings the package holds. | It is the only honest denominator for cost per day, and for whether a multi-bottle pack will be finished before a return window closes. |
| The name of every dietary ingredient | Each ingredient named, inside the box, in a fixed order. | A name on a marketing graphic is not this. A panel name sits in a regulated list; a graphic name sits in artwork, and nobody is required to make artwork accurate. |
| The quantity of every dietary ingredient | A weight, per serving, beside each name. | This is the figure the whole panel exists for. FDA’s own labeling guide puts it plainly: you must list the names and quantities of dietary ingredients present in your product. |
| Percent Daily Value, where one is established | A percentage column for ingredients that have a Daily Value. | It is the one row type you can audit unaided, by dividing the amount by the published Daily Value and checking the label’s own arithmetic. |
| A footnote for ingredients with no Daily Value | Usually a double asterisk and a line reading that the Daily Value is not established. | This is correct rather than evasive. Most botanicals and some minerals have no Daily Value, and a label saying so is telling you something true. |
| A blend total, if a proprietary blend is used | The total weight of the blend, on the same line as its name, with the ingredients beneath it in descending order of weight. | A blend withholds the individual amounts but must still give one number. That number plus the count of names is all a reader can turn into ceilings. |
| Other ingredients | Everything that is not a dietary ingredient, listed outside the box in descending order of weight. | This is where the capsule shell is declared, and the only way to learn whether a shell is gelatin or vegetarian. Fillers and flow agents appear here too. |
| Name and place of business | The manufacturer, packer or distributor, with a place of business. | It is the answer to the question of who to ask. A distributor is who sells a product rather than who makes it, and the distinction matters when something goes wrong. |
| The FDA disclaimer, where structure/function claims are made | The statement that the claims have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. | Its presence tells you the seller knows which kind of claim it is making. Its absence beside a claim that needs it tells you something too. |
The line to read first, every time
The quantity of every dietary ingredient. A panel without amounts is a list, and a list is not a disclosure. Everything else on a label — the seals, the graphics, the testimonials, the guarantee — is downstream of whether that column is filled in. When it is filled in, as it is on the product this site documents, the work shifts from noticing an absence to doing arithmetic.
Why a standardisation beats a milligram figure
This is the part of the page most likely to change how you read a shelf. The figure buyers compare is the milligram figure, and it is the weaker of the two numbers a botanical row can carry.
A milligram figure is a weight of material
200 mg of a botanical extract tells you how much powder is in the capsule. It does not tell you what that powder was concentrated to, which solvent produced it, which part of the plant it came from, or how much of the measured constituent it carries. Two products can print the same name and the same weight and deliver amounts of the active constituent that differ several-fold.
A standardisation is a proportion of something measurable
Standardised to 3% phytosterols is a statement about composition rather than about weight. It says the material was manufactured to hit a fixed proportion of a constituent somebody assayed. That is what makes two products comparable, and it is what a published trial reports: trials specify the plant part, the extract ratio and the standardisation, not just a name and a weight.
Multiply the two and you have the figure that matters
The printed amount times the printed percentage is the delivered amount of the measured constituent, and it is the only figure a trial dose can be set against. It takes one multiplication on a phone. Skipping it is how a shelf full of larger milligram figures sells smaller deliveries of the thing being measured.
Without a standardisation, a row cannot be compared at all
A complete botanical row carries a binomial, a plant part, a standardisation or an extract ratio, and a weight. Drop the weight and you cannot size it. Drop the standardisation and you cannot compare it with anything, including the same product bought again next year. The names guide takes a row apart element by element.
The clearest demonstration in this whole category is a pygeum row, so here is one, worked in full. On the left is the extract the clinical literature uses. On the right is the row printed on the product this site documents. Every figure in the table is printed on a label or in a published source, and the two multiplications are the only arithmetic in it.
| The extract the trials use | This product’s pygeum row | What that means | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Printed amount | 100 mg | 200 mg | The product prints twice as much material. |
| Printed standardisation | 13% total sterols | 3% phytosterols | Under a quarter of the proportion. |
| The multiplication | 100 × 0.13 | 200 × 0.03 | Two printed numbers each. Nothing is estimated. |
| Phytosterols delivered | 13 mg | 6 mg | The larger milligram figure delivers about 46% as much. |
| What a shelf shopper sees | the smaller number | the larger number | Which is exactly why the percentage has to be multiplied out first. |
Read the fourth row twice. 200 mg standardised to 3% delivers 6 mg of phytosterols, and 100 mg standardised to 13% delivers 13 mg. The product prints twice the trial’s milligram figure and delivers roughly 46% of its sterols — about 2.17 times less. That is the whole argument for reading a standardisation percentage before a milligram figure, in one row, on one label. And notice what made it visible: the label printed its percentage. A row reading only “Pygeum 200 mg” would look stronger and tell you less.
Green bars are this product. Grey bars are the dose used in the published work. Read the three pairs: the pygeum row prints 200 mg and delivers 6 mg of the measured constituent against the trial's 13 mg; the nettle row prints 50 mg of leaf against 360 mg of root; the lycopene row prints 10 mg of a 5% preparation, which is 0.5 mg of lycopene, against 15 mg. Every figure is printed on the label or is the printed figure multiplied by the printed standardisation.
The lycopene pair in that chart is the same lesson in a different unit. A row reading Lycopene 5% 10 mg is 10 mg of a preparation that is 5% lycopene, so the lycopene is 0.5 mg. Set against the 15 mg used in the trial, that is about a thirtieth. The percentage is doing all the work and it is printed in the smallest type on the row.
Which part of the plant, and why it decides everything
One word per botanical row, and it decides which published work applies. Different parts of one plant are different materials with different constituents, and a trial on one does not transfer to the other. In this category there is one pair that catches almost everybody.
| Plant | Species | The part that matters | What the published work used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saw palmetto | Serenoa repens | Fruit | The fruit is the part the clinical literature uses, so a label naming the fruit has named the right part. |
| Nettle | Urtica dioica | Root for the prostate; leaf for other things entirely | Root trials: aqueous root extract at 360 mg a day for six months, methanol root extract at 600 to 1,200 mg a day. Leaf has a separate literature — topical use for rheumatic complaints, osteoarthritis pain, allergic rhinitis — none of it about the prostate. |
| Pygeum | Printed as Pygeum africanum | Bark | The bark is the part the literature uses, and the trials specify a sterol standardisation with it. |
| Pumpkin | Cucurbita species | Seed, and usually the oil pressed from it | The urinary-symptom literature is generally on the oil at around a gram a day, or whole seeds in gram quantities, rather than on a small weight of unstandardised extract. |
| Tomato | Lycopersicum esculentum | Fruit, as the source of lycopene | Here the part matters less than the constituent, because lycopene is what gets measured and what trials report. |
The nettle row is the one to remember. A label reading Nettle Extract (leaf) 50 mg has told you the truth and told you that the wrong part is in the capsule: the prostate literature is on the root, at 360 mg a day and up. Two gaps then sit on top of each other — the wrong part, and about seven times too little even if the part had matched. Notice again that declaring the part is what makes this visible. A row reading only “Nettle Extract 50 mg” would hide it.
05The nettle is the leaf, and the prostate literature is on the root
What the evidence on each main ingredient says
Seven entries, each with what the published work actually found and the dose it used. This is the column to carry to a shelf, because a dose you can name is a dose you can compare a label against. Nothing here is a recommendation and nothing here is about any finished product.
| Ingredient | What the evidence says | The dose and the detail | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens, fruit) | The largest and most recent trial found nothing. | CAMUS randomised 369 men, started at 320 mg a day, doubled the dose at 24 weeks and tripled it at 48, and ran 72 weeks. Mean AUA Symptom Index fell 2.2 points on saw palmetto and 2.99 on placebo, P = .91 — no difference at any of the three doses and no benefit on any secondary outcome. | Citation 5 |
| Pygeum (bark) | A clinical literature exists, and it specifies a standardisation. | Trials use extract standardised to 13% total sterols, at around 100 mg a day or 50 mg twice daily, which delivers 13 mg of sterols. A label that prints no percentage cannot be set against that figure at all. | Citation 6 |
| Nettle (Urtica dioica) | Root, and the doses are large. | Aqueous root extract at 360 mg a day for six months; methanol root extract at 600 to 1,200 mg a day. The leaf literature is about other conditions entirely. | Citation 7 |
| Lycopene | One small trial, at a dose worth remembering. | 15 mg of lycopene a day for six months in 40 men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. That 15 mg is the number to compare any lycopene row against, and remember that the row usually prints a preparation rather than the constituent. | Citation 8 |
| Pumpkin seed | Present in the literature, at gram scale. | Generally the oil at around a gram a day, or whole seeds in gram quantities. A small weight of unstandardised seed extract cannot be placed against those figures. | the published literature |
| Grape seed | Not a prostate ingredient. | Studied as an antioxidant and in cardiovascular contexts. It is not one of the ingredients the prostate literature is built on, and a label carrying it owes you an explanation of why it is there. | no source names it for this use |
| Lycopene from food | The cheapest comparison available. | USDA puts one cup of canned tomato juice at 21.96 mg of lycopene and one cup of canned tomato puree at 54.39 mg. Any lycopene row on any bottle is worth holding against those two figures before you pay for it. | Citation 9 |
Two entries in that table deserve to be read before any bottle in this category is bought. The saw palmetto row is the null result: a trial that escalated to 960 mg a day across 369 men over 72 weeks and found no difference from placebo at any dose. And the lycopene row is the dose to remember, because 15 mg is easy to reach from food and very hard to reach from a capsule containing a few milligrams of a 5% preparation.
- American Academy of Family Physicians (2012). Saw Palmetto Ineffective for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (Barry et al., JAMA 2011).
- PeaceHealth / Natural Medicines monograph (2026). Pygeum: dosage, standardisation to 13% total sterols, and evidence rating.
- Drugs.com natural products database (2026). Nettles (Urtica dioica): root doses used in BPH trials, and leaf uses.
- FoodNavigator, reporting Schwarz et al., Journal of Nutrition 138:49-53 (2008). Lycopene 15 mg a day for six months in 40 men with BPH.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library (2026). Lycopene content of tomato products, per household measure.
Twelve questions to ask of any bottle
Twelve questions, in order, for a product page or a seller’s inbox. The first four do most of the work, and the fourth is the one almost nobody asks.
- Is there a Supplement Facts panel, and can I see it? If a product page does not show one, ask for a photograph of it before anything else. Every other question is downstream of this one.
- Does every row carry an amount, and is there a blend line? Count the names and count the figures. If the counts match and no blend is declared, the label has done the main thing a label is for.
- What is each botanical standardised to, and at what percentage? This is the question that separates a comparable product from a name on a bottle, and it is the question to ask in writing.
- What does the standardisation come to in milligrams? Do the multiplication yourself: the printed amount times the printed percentage. Compare that figure, not the one in large type.
- Which species, and which part of the plant? A common name can cover several species, and different parts of one plant have different literatures. Root and leaf are the pair that catches people out in this category.
- Is there an extract ratio? A figure such as 4:1 tells you how concentrated the material is. Without it, a milligram of extract and a milligram of raw powder look identical on a label and are not.
- What is the capsule shell made of? The Other Ingredients line answers it. Gelatin is an animal product, and a badge reading Vegetarian over a gelatin shell is contradicted by the label itself.
- Does any row carry a large percent Daily Value, and what is the upper limit for it? A big percentage is only readable next to a limit. Look the limit up before you decide whether the number is impressive or simply large.
- Who is named on the label, and with what place of business? A manufacturer, packer or distributor with an address and an email is a party you can ask a question of. A city and state with no street line cannot receive a letter.
- If the page says GMP certified, who certified it? An auditor, a certificate number and an expiry date, or it is a graphic. cGMP compliance is a legal requirement under 21 CFR Part 111, not a distinction.
- Is there a certificate of analysis for the lot I will receive? Quote the lot code from the base of the bottle. A certificate number with no certificate attached is a filing reference.
- What are the full refund terms on the checkout screen, not the sales page? The window, who pays postage, and the address. Screenshot them before you pay, especially where a page prints two different windows.
Put the standardisation questions in writing. A specification is the kind of thing a responsible company can state in one line, and a written answer is a dated record. The contact page writes out seventeen of these for the product this site documents, in the order they are worth asking.
The same questions, run on this product
Ten of the twelve questions above, answered against the Prostacyl label, so you can see what a good answer and a poor answer look like side by side. This label answers more of them than any other in this series.
| The question | What this label answers |
|---|---|
| Is there a panel? | Yes, and it is complete. 9 rows, 9 printed amounts, no proprietary blend. |
| Do the counts match? | Yes. Every name carries a figure. This is the best answer this question has returned in the series. |
| What is standardised, and to what? | Two of six botanical rows. Pygeum to 3% phytosterols and lycopene to 5%. Saw palmetto, pumpkin seed and grape seed print nothing. |
| What do the standardisations come to? | 6 mg of phytosterols and 0.5 mg of lycopene a serving. Both are two printed numbers multiplied together. |
| Species and plant parts? | Four binomials and five plant parts printed across six botanical rows. The nettle row prints the part — leaf — and no binomial. |
| Extract ratios? | Not published on any row. No ratio appears anywhere on the panel. |
| Capsule shell? | Gelatin (capsule), Brown Rice Flour. Gelatin, so not vegetarian, and one supplied badge reads Vegetarian. |
| Large percent Daily Values? | Two. B6 at 812%, correctly calculated, against upper limits of 100 mg in the US and 12 mg in the EU. Vitamin E printed at 167%, which the synthetic form does not deliver. |
| Who is named, and where? | Nutrova, Tallmadge, OH 44278, USA, printed on the label with an email address. A real party with a place of business. |
| Refund terms? | Printed two different ways on the same sales page: 60 days in one place and 90 in another. |
The shape of that table is the point. A label can be excellent at disclosure and poor at dose, and those are separate judgements that a reader has to keep apart. This one prints everything and then shows you that four of its nine rows sit well below the published work. The ingredients page takes all nine rows one at a time, and the score page sets out why the disclosure row scores 5 out of 5 and the dose row scores 1.
When to stop reading and make an appointment
This section belongs on a page about labels, because reading one well can quietly replace doing something more useful. Urinary symptoms have several possible causes, and working out which one you have is not something a panel can do.
- Blood in the urine, pain on passing urine, or a fever with urinary symptoms. These are reasons to be seen rather than reasons to read a label.
- You cannot pass urine, or you can only pass a little with great effort. Urgent, and not a supplement question at all.
- Symptoms that came on quickly, or changed quickly. A gradual change over years and a change over a fortnight are different stories.
- You are already taking something for it. A prescribed medicine for urinary symptoms, or any medicine at all, is a reason to have the conversation before adding a capsule rather than after.
- You are using a supplement instead of being assessed. This is the common one and the quiet one. Urinary symptoms have several possible causes, and deciding which one you have is not something a bottle can do.
- You want to know whether a dose in a trial applies to you. A trial dose is an average across a selected group. Whether it means anything for one person is exactly the judgement a clinician is for.
The honest framing for this whole category
A supplement label is a declaration of contents. It is not a diagnosis, and this page is not medical advice. The most useful sentence on most labels in this category is the one telling you to consult a physician if you have a known medical condition. If you are weighing a bottle because something has changed about how you pass urine, the bottle is the second step and the appointment is the first. The disclaimer sets this out in full.
None of that makes label reading pointless. It makes it the right tool for the right question. A panel tells you what you would be taking and in what quantity, which is exactly what a clinician or a pharmacist needs from you in order to say something useful. Take the panel with you, and note which rows carry a large percent Daily Value.
Common questions about this category
Eight questions about reading this category rather than about one product. Type in the box to filter them.
what should i look for on a prostate supplement label
A Supplement Facts panel, first and before anything else. Inside it, look for an amount beside every named ingredient, a standardisation percentage on every botanical, a species and a plant part, and a blend total if a proprietary blend is used. Outside it, look for an Other Ingredients line telling you what the capsule shell is, a caution block, and a name and place of business. Then do one multiplication per standardised row before you compare anything.
why does standardisation matter more than milligrams
Because a milligram figure is a weight of material and a standardisation is a proportion of something measurable. The clearest demonstration in this category is pygeum. Trials use extract standardised to 13% total sterols at about 100 mg a day, which delivers 13 mg of sterols. A product printing 200 mg standardised to 3% delivers 6 mg. Twice the milligrams, under half the measured constituent. The larger number on the shelf is the smaller dose.
does saw palmetto work for bph
The largest and most recent trial says no. CAMUS randomised 369 men, started them on 320 mg a day, doubled the dose at 24 weeks and tripled it at 48, and ran for 72 weeks. Mean AUA Symptom Index fell 2.2 points on saw palmetto and 2.99 on placebo, P = .91, with no difference at any dose and no benefit on any secondary outcome. A product below 320 mg is below the lowest arm of a trial that found nothing at three doses.
how much lycopene per day for prostate
The commonly cited trial gave 15 mg a day for six months to 40 men with BPH. Two things follow for label reading. First, that figure is the constituent, not a preparation: a row reading Lycopene 5% 10 mg delivers half a milligram of lycopene. Second, food reaches the trial figure easily — USDA puts one cup of canned tomato juice at 21.96 mg and one cup of canned tomato puree at 54.39 mg.
nettle root or nettle leaf for prostate
Root. The clinical work on nettle and benign prostatic hyperplasia is on Urtica dioica root: aqueous root extract at 360 mg a day for six months and methanol root extract at 600 to 1,200 mg a day. Nettle leaf has its own literature — topical use for rheumatic complaints, trials in osteoarthritis pain and allergic rhinitis — and none of it concerns the prostate. A label declaring the leaf has declared a different material from the one the trials used.
does a gmp seal mean a supplement is tested
No. Current Good Manufacturing Practice is a legal requirement under 21 CFR Part 111 for every facility making dietary supplements for the US market, so compliance is an obligation rather than an achievement. A GMP certification is a third-party audit of that compliance, and an audit has an auditor, a scope, a certificate number and an expiry date. A roundel naming none of those is a stock graphic. Testing of a specific lot is a separate document again: a certificate of analysis.
can a supplement claim to shrink the prostate
No. A dietary supplement may claim to support the normal structure or function of the body; it may not claim to treat, prevent or mitigate a disease, and an enlarged prostate is a disease state with a name. That is why labels in this category are worded as support and promotion rather than as treatment, and why the FDA disclaimer has to appear wherever such a claim is made. Context changes how a claim reads, and a phrase about prostate size sits closer to the line than a phrase about urinary comfort.
should i see a doctor about urinary symptoms
Yes, and especially before deciding the answer is a capsule. Urinary symptoms have several possible causes, some of them have nothing to do with the prostate, and the ones that need attention quickly — blood in the urine, pain, fever, or being unable to pass urine — are not label-reading problems. A clinician can tell you which cause you are dealing with. Nothing on this site is medical advice, and the most useful sentence printed on most labels in this category is the one telling you to ask a physician.
References
12 sources, all opened and read. The regulatory statements on this page come from the FDA and FTC publications; the dose and trial figures come from the five sources listed for the individual ingredients, and from USDA for the food comparison.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide: Chapter IV, Nutrition Labeling (21 CFR 101.36).
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Vitamin E: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Vitamin B6: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Boron: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
- American Academy of Family Physicians (2012). Saw Palmetto Ineffective for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (Barry et al., JAMA 2011).
- PeaceHealth / Natural Medicines monograph (2026). Pygeum: dosage, standardisation to 13% total sterols, and evidence rating.
- Drugs.com natural products database (2026). Nettles (Urtica dioica): root doses used in BPH trials, and leaf uses.
- FoodNavigator, reporting Schwarz et al., Journal of Nutrition 138:49-53 (2008). Lycopene 15 mg a day for six months in 40 men with BPH.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library (2026). Lycopene content of tomato products, per household measure.
- U.S. Federal Trade Commission (2026). Complying with the Made in USA Standard, and the Made in USA Labeling Rule (16 CFR Part 323).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Structure/Function Claims for Dietary Supplements.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Dietary Supplements (21 CFR Part 111).
None of them is cited as evidence about any finished product. They are cited for what a label has to carry, for what the published work used, and for what the upper limits are — which is exactly the set of figures a printed amount lets you compare against.
Read the panel before you decide
Sixty capsules, two a day, thirty days a bottle. The Supplement Facts panel declares nine ingredients and nine amounts, with no proprietary blend — the most transparent label in this series. Four of those nine rows change meaning once the arithmetic is done, and all four sums are shown in full. One bottle is $69; six are $49 each. The refund window is printed as 60 days in one place and 90 in another.
- 60 or 90 days — the page prints both
- Nine ingredients, nine printed amounts, no blend
- Returns to 1370 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 4, New York, NY 10019, USA
Prices as printed on the sales page, as of October 12, 2026: one bottle $69, six bottles $49 each with free shipping. The three-bottle total is not published, so it is left blank rather than estimated. The refund window is printed as 60 days in one place and 90 in another — confirm it at the checkout. Questions first? Every published contact route is here.
Keep reading
Authorship and review
Who wrote and checked this page
What this page was checked against
- The label artwork, read at 2× and transcribed character for character. Where the label and the marketing disagree, the label is printed.
- The seller pack, quoted rather than paraphrased, and identified as marketing wherever it is used.
- The published sources listed in the references on this page. Every one was opened and read; none is cited from memory.
- The arithmetic, shown in full. Every amount on this panel is printed, so the figures here are conversions of printed amounts with the working given, never ceilings and never estimates.
- Nothing else. Any fact that was not supplied is recorded as not published rather than filled in.
Last updated October 12, 2026. A highlighted slot is a value no human has supplied yet. Who reviews these pages?