does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
#vendor-verification 2025-03-09
Sunday39 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- VialBot — Assay note: KP lot A-2601 reported at 99% of label content. 20:36
- sunday_shot — has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score 21:15
- wrong_network — update from 22 months ago: TFC added evidence and the entry now reflects it 21:43
- wrong_network — genuine question a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel 21:50
- a1c_lag — update on the earlier thing the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line we have never revoked on a… 22:35
both numbers go in
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
genuine question what actually counts as evidence for a verification
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
genuine question is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
Assay note: KP lot A-2601 reported at 99% of label content.
⚠️1
who decides, the mods or the room
log it either way
post the photos
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
thin evidence
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
nothing gets deleted
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, ymmv
not a recommendation
update from 22 months ago: TFC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
*Medutest not the other one
genuine question a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
⚠️9✅4📈8
revoked stays in the log
pattern not one result
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
lot number or nothing
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, take that with a pinch of salt
update on the earlier thing the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
how does a supplier get verification revoked
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently