Herbal quality control often relies on one or a few marker compounds because they are measurable, stable, and compatible with routine specifications. Yet a marker can satisfy an assay without establishing that the correct botanical material is present, that the wider chemical profile is consistent, that measured constituents are relevant to biological potency, or that exogenous hazards are adequately controlled. This article develops an original, nonempirical standardization model that treats these questions as analytically related but non-substitutable. The model is built from recent evidence on chromatographic and spectroscopic fingerprinting, DNA-based authentication, metabolomics, multicomponent quantification, spectrum–effect analysis, pharmacokinetic and bioavailability-informed marker selection, process analysis, and contaminant surveillance. Four proposed quality attributes are separated: material identity, chemical consistency, potency-relevant constituent evidence, and contaminant risk. Product state, botanical part, provenance, processing, formulation complexity, and intended use are treated as context modifiers that determine which evidence is observable and which analytical methods are appropriate. The model therefore rejects both a single-marker definition of total quality and the opposite assumption that adding more measurements automatically yields better standardization. Instead, it proposes claim-specific sufficiency, orthogonal evidence where failure modes differ, and explicit validation boundaries. The framework is not a validated scoring system, regulatory standard, or universal assay panel. Its value lies in organizing heterogeneous quality evidence into a testable architecture that can be challenged through product-specific, cross-laboratory, and prospective validation.
