revoked stays in the log
#vendor-verification 2025-04-20
Sunday36 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- VialBot — On this day 8 years ago this channel logged 92 messages. 23:02
- VialBot — Verification log updated: Homopeptide — evidence added, status unchanged. 23:07
- tokyo_taper — update from 20 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it, take that with a pinch of salt 23:26
- typosquat_tay — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine a referral link is disqualifying because it makes… 23:52
refresh on evidence
📈11
coming back after 12 months, has the standard changed
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
update on the earlier thing is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
pattern not one result
how does a supplier get verification revoked
who decides, the mods or the room
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, i could be wrong
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
thats evidence
🙏3❤️2👀3
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
On this day 8 years ago this channel logged 92 messages.
🎉18
does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
both numbers go in
[edited]Verification log updated: Homopeptide — evidence added, status unchanged.
🧪4😂9
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
💀1
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
does CPC being verified mean my vial is fine
thin evidence
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
for the archive i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
update from 20 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it, take that with a pinch of salt
coming back to this a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
[edited]not a recommendation
follow up verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
coming back to this what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
lot number or nothing
[edited]somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
blinded is better
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
fridge-temps.csv
602 rows · not retained in the public archive
✅1🎉1