two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
#vendor-verification 2025-09-30
Tuesday53 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- bac_water_bill — slightly off topic but blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs 18:02
- deadspace — does SGN being verified mean my vial is fine 18:30
- verify_or_dont — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 18:59
- orfor_watch — does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything 19:09
- mcg_not_mg — update from 7 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it 21:02
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
blinded is better
right so the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, thats just me
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
not a recommendation
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
sorry to jump in i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
sorry to jump in the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, happy to be corrected
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
slightly off topic but blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
🔥14👀2
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
lot number or nothing
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
right so somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
revoked stays in the log
🤝3
genuine question a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
does SGN being verified mean my vial is fine
post the photos
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
how many independent results does a supplier need
[edited]coming back after 2 months, has the standard changed
thin evidence
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
🔥17
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
how does a supplier get verification revoked
thats not evidence
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
[edited]👀1🙏1🎉9
sorry to jump in is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine, n of 1 obviously
[edited]pattern not one result
log it either way
😂6🧊1
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
thats not evidence
📈10
who decides, the mods or the room
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
not a recommendation, happy to be corrected
thats evidence
refresh on evidence
update from 7 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor