blinded is better
#vendor-verification 2025-01-14
Tuesday41 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- eight_mm — how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor 20:52
- relabel_watch — while im here a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, i have it written down somewhere 21:17
- VialBot — New independent result logged — GGPeps, lot A-2418, purity 96.8% (PeptideMeter). 21:19
- per_mg_pete — verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, take that with a pinch of salt 21:58
- noct.titrate — do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones 22:55
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
genuine question is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
refresh on evidence
🙏1
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
medutest-report-a-2418.pdf
3 pages · 461 KB · not retained in the public archive
🧪15💀17
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
🧊9
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
update from 5 months ago: WWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
thats evidence
while im here a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, i have it written down somewhere
[edited]😂4🧪5
New independent result logged — GGPeps, lot A-2418, purity 96.8% (PeptideMeter).
thats not evidence
never for sale
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
update from 11 months ago: CPC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
who decides, the mods or the room
[edited]post the photos
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, take that with a pinch of salt
❤️11📈13🧪1
sorry to jump in if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
⚠️1
revoked stays in the log
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
follow up how many independent results does a supplier need
both numbers go in
lot number or nothing
not a recommendation
genuine question what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, i have it written down somewhere
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
log it either way
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
❤️18🧪1
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, ymmv
Testing queue: 5 submissions open, 33 awaiting dispatch.
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
slightly off topic but i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel