pattern not one result
✅4⚠️1🎉4
#vendor-verification 2025-07-22
Tuesday48 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- relabel_watch — we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry 20:45
- ghk_gia — does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything 21:18
- lisbon_lot — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 22:06
refresh on evidence
coa-g-0641.pdf
1 page · 378 KB · not retained in the public archive
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, thats one data point
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from Medutest
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, i have it written down somewhere
not a recommendation
never for sale
both numbers go in
thin evidence
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
🧊1📉8📈4
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
🧪2🎉8
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
Purity check: no report on file for lot H-2814. Nothing logged either way.
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
❤️1⚠️9
slightly off topic but a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
[edited]a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
👀14👍12
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
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 |
update from 25 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
update on the earlier thing verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
Reminder set. I will post here in 3 days.
amsterdam_aliquota lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post…
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
👀11😂5⚠️4
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
thats not evidence
for the archive if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
nothing gets deleted
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
👀9
log it either way
💀4
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
🤝9
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
🧪8💀14
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
New independent result logged — SWB, lot H-2814, purity 98.1% (PeptideMeter).
📉3
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
post the photos
revoked stays in the log
😂16
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
blinded is better
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count