two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
#vendor-verification 2025-08-22
Friday30 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- van_isle_vial — how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor 22:52
- vat_on_import — a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 23:04
- meniscus_mel — for the archive the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now 23:44
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
🧊2⚠️18
blinded is better
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel, not advice obviously
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
thats not evidence
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
📉3🧪2
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
⚠️16
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
❤️3
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
how does a supplier get verification revoked
never for sale
while im here the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
nothing gets deleted
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
peptidemeter-summary-e-2205.pdf
2 pages · 791 KB · not retained in the public archive
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
sorry to jump in does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
slightly off topic but is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
| 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 |
thats evidence
log it either way
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
follow up we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
for the archive the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
| 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 |
*Medutest not the other one
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record