what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
#vendor-verification 2025-06-14
Saturday55 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- appetite_back — 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 16:04
- evidence_or_not — how does a supplier get verification revoked 16:43
- tokyo_taper — verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, still working it out 18:11
- eat_more_please — has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation 18:34
- eat_more_please — nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes 19:45
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
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
📈4📉4
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
sorry to jump in a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, thats just me
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, i think
update from 12 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
how does a supplier get verification revoked
😂5🙏1📉8
ok so i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
appetite_backwe refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results…
coming back after 9 months, has the standard changed
never for sale
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
who decides, the mods or the room
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all, still working it out
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
17:47tenpence pinned a message to this channel
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
does KP being verified mean my vial is fine
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
🎉1✅1⚠️2
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, still working it out
👍5📈6🙏12
post the photos
slightly off topic but the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
| 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 |
🤝6
for the archive what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
log it either way
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
how many independent results does a supplier need
nothing gets deleted
revoked stays in the log
lot number or nothing
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
💀1✅13🤝3
refresh on evidence
| 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🤝5
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, we shall see
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
thats not evidence
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
not a recommendation
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, thats one data point
blinded is better
thin evidence, someone check my working
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
pattern not one result
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
thats evidence