who decides, the mods or the room
chromatogram-overlay.png
1240 × 720 · 921 KB · not retained in the public archive
#vendor-verification 2025-06-03
Tuesday46 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- subq_sy — how does a supplier get verification revoked 16:06
- bpc_sceptic — slightly off topic but what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 16:22
- thirty_one_g — does QST being verified mean my vial is fine 16:41
- month_six_me — if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 17:27
log it either way
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers, n of 1 obviously
how does a supplier get verification revoked
😂14📉8👀1
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
nothing gets deleted
slightly off topic but what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
💀10🎉13🙏16
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
while im here what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, still working it out
both numbers go in
does QST being verified mean my vial is fine
❤️15📉1👀1
blinded is better
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
thats not evidence
📈6🙏1
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
unrelated but a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
👍15⚠️12
never for sale
post the photos
✅1🙏1
thats evidence
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
*Medutest not the other one
lot number or nothing
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
😂1👍11🧊5
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
📉4📈1
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
💀4
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
👀3🙏1
not a recommendation
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
revoked stays in the log
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
🙏7
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, we shall see
while im here the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
revoked stays in the log
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
🎉3
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
thin evidence
coming back after 7 months, has the standard changed
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs