vialroom

#vendor-verification 2025-11-09

Sunday17 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
  • taper_tess — update from 18 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it 17:26
  • taper_tess — update on the earlier thing how many independent results does a supplier need 17:28
  • VialBot — Archive lookup: taper_tess first appears in this channel on 2025-08-17. 17:39
  • lyophile_liv — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, take that with a pinch of salt 18:12
TT

nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes

LL

a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited

📈4

does SGN being verified mean my vial is fine

the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not

TT

if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted

LL

is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all

TT

update from 18 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it

update on the earlier thing how many independent results does a supplier need

🙏8👀3🧊8
LL

what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises

VB

Archive lookup: taper_tess first appears in this channel on 2025-08-17.

TT

coming back to this two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers

OO

a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record

LL

verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, take that with a pinch of salt

transit-times.csv
798 rows · not retained in the public archive