follow up two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
#vendor-verification 2025-11-15
Saturday63 messages14 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- pbs_pip — does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter 14:25
- retention_time — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 16:48
- septum_sal — a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel 18:28
- VialBot — New independent result logged — SGN, lot D-0718, purity 98.6% (VendorInvestigate). 18:35
not a recommendation
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
ok so a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
both numbers go in
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
quick one verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
😂10📉1
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
revoked stays in the log
does SWB being verified mean my vial is fine
lot number or nothing
never for sale
log it either way
thats evidence
update from 17 months ago: JEEP added evidence and the entry now reflects it, i have it written down somewhere
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
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, i could be wrong
nothing gets deleted
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
pattern not one result
thats not evidence
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, take that with a pinch of salt
thin evidence
how does a supplier get verification revoked
quick one verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
post the photos
refresh on evidence
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
🎉14📈7
blinded is better
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, ymmv
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
*that should say weekly
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
⚠️4
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, your mileage will differ
Reminder set. I will post here in 2 days.
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
📉4🧊4
ok so pattern not one result
thin evidence
😂5👀1
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
New independent result logged — SGN, lot D-0718, purity 98.6% (VendorInvestigate).
🎉2
retention_timeif the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than…
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
follow up if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, i could be wrong
unrelated but how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
*that should say weekly
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
genuine question nothing gets deleted
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
blinded is better
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
sorry to jump in i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, i have it written down somewhere
refresh on evidence