update from 4 months ago: Homopeptide added evidence and the entry now reflects it
#vendor-verification 2024-08-24
Saturday33 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- surpass_two — update from 4 months ago: Homopeptide added evidence and the entry now reflects it 10:11
- thirty_min_wait — nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, thats just me 10:56
- void_volume — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove… 13:14
- ten_of_ten — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 14:44
- VialBot — Channel stats, last 30 days: 60 messages from 45 members. 14:56
right so why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
[edited]thats not evidence
📈17🙏13
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, take that with a pinch of salt
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, thats just me
👀17🔥6
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, n of 1 obviously
coming back after 16 months, has the standard changed
*PeptideMeter not the other one
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
lot number or nothing
🙏1😂7📉9
does MKM being verified mean my vial is fine
for the archive what actually counts as evidence for a verification
blinded is better
⚠️2📈17💀17
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
sorry to jump in does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
never for sale
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
nothing gets deleted
triple_ag_tomwe refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results…
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
*Janoshik not the other one
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
🔥16
thin evidence
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
📈15🎉14
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
Channel stats, last 30 days: 60 messages from 45 members.
👀4