#vendor-verification 2025-05-28

Wednesday20 messages3 participantstimes are UTC

Highlights from this day

apob_over_ldl — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 19:05
lot_number_lou — slightly off topic but the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 20:14
lot_number_lou — we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry 21:00

thin evidence

a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all

how many independent results does a supplier need

has anyone ever offered to pay for verification

does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from Janoshik

is there a version of the log i can read chronologically

revoked stays in the log

post the photos

a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record

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

🎉17⚠️6📉16

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

if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution

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

i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count

slightly off topic but the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not

verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently

we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry

🧪7✅7❤️12

sorry to jump in if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score

is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation

pattern not one result