nothing gets deleted
#vendor-verification 2025-08-12
Tuesday43 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- brisbane_bac — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 18:55
- brisbane_bac — is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable 19:17
- bengaluru_bac — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 19:56
- VialBot — Assay note: SGN lot KP-0925 reported at 98.1% of label content. 20:37
never for sale
lot number or nothing
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
not a recommendation
📈17
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, for what its worth
pattern not one result
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
vial-b-0329-front.png
900 × 1200 · 138 KB · not retained in the public archive
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
[edited]what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
how does a supplier get verification revoked
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
💀18📈12🧪5
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
sorry to jump in if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
post the photos
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
⚠️18🧊2
thats evidence
quick one the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, take that with a pinch of salt
❤️1🙏3🤝1
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
update from 25 months ago: SSA added evidence and the entry now reflects it, n of 1 obviously
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
Assay note: SGN lot KP-0925 reported at 98.1% of label content.
🎉2⚠️17
thats not evidence
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
thin evidence
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
[redacted at member request] · archive policy
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
ok so has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
📈4🙏3
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing