vialroom

#vendor-verification 2025-01-20

Monday19 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
  • pinch_not_stretch — a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 18:35
  • private_script_pri — does GL Biochem being verified mean my vial is fine 20:28
  • acetate_ash — update from 7 months ago: BCH added evidence and the entry now reflects it, i could be wrong 22:08
PN

nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, someone check my working

is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable

TM

does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution

a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited

❤️2⚠️1🤝5
BS

if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score

TM

what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises

TM

the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division

TM

the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line

PS

i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier

PS

verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted

what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine

does GL Biochem being verified mean my vial is fine

❤️8
AA

coming back to this how many independent results does a supplier need

🧪4
AA

update from 7 months ago: BCH added evidence and the entry now reflects it, i could be wrong

🤝4📉3
FA

somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log