coming back after 8 months, has the standard changed
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
🤝3🧊1
#vendor-verification 2025-07-02
Wednesday28 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- snac_and_water — unrelated but what actually counts as evidence for a verification 15:24
- ring_size_down — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 16:34
- perth_pin — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 18:18
- ring_size_down — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 18:47
unrelated but what actually counts as evidence for a verification
| 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 |
who decides, the mods or the room
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, i could be wrong
nothing gets deleted
transit-times.csv
347 rows · not retained in the public archive
post the photos
pattern not one result
Reminder for perth_pin: dose day is today. Set 6 days ago.
does BCH being verified mean my vial is fine
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
📈6
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
✅16👍4🙏5
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
*PeptideMeter not the other one
not a recommendation
[edited]why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
[edited]both numbers go in
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
🙏1
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
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
| 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 |
lot number or nothing
👀18
log it either way
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
| 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 |
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
stack_scepticcoming back after 8 months, has the standard changed i have watched this standard hold…
how does a supplier get verification revoked
revoked stays in the log
fridge-thermometer.png
800 × 800 · 801 KB · not retained in the public archive
ok so how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
[edited]