genuine question the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
#vendor-verification 2025-10-25
Saturday38 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
coming back to this somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
update from 6 months ago: WWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
right so if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
for the archive does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
👍7📈4😂12
never for sale
⚠️5❤️1💀2
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
refresh on evidence
revoked stays in the log
how many independent results does a supplier need
| 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 |
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
🧪7
nothing gets deleted
update on the earlier thing we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
thats evidence
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
who decides, the mods or the room
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
👀4🤝3🔥10
update from 4 months ago: SWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
blinded is better
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
*Medutest not the other one
Digest for the week of 2025-02-22 has been published.
how does a supplier get verification revoked
not a recommendation
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers