what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
#vendor-verification 2025-12-17
Wednesday58 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- amylin_amy — the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now 19:19
- lena_lots — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line 19:20
- lena_lots — i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count 19:25
- panel_before_after — if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score 20:11
- evidence_or_not — ok so a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 20:35
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
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
Verification log updated: SSA — evidence added, status unchanged.
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
for the archive if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
👀1🧪17
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
💀18⚠️12🤝5
evidence_or_notwhat does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or…
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
👍3👀17🎉1
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, thats one data point
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
❤️6
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
who decides, the mods or the room
thats not evidence
does GL Biochem being verified mean my vial is fine
never for sale
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
update on the earlier thing what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
❤️9🤝2📈3
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
revoked stays in the log
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
📈15🧪8🙏6
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
[edited]update from 16 months ago: QYB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
for the archive we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
ok so a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
✅1🙏17
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
janoshik-f-1330.pdf
2 pages · 577 KB · not retained in the public archive
pattern not one result
| 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 |
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
quick one why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
update on the earlier thing is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
refresh on evidence
both numbers go in
lot number or nothing
log it either way
🤝8💀2❤️14
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
thin evidence
nothing gets deleted
❤️3😂7
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
thats evidence
❤️9🎉3⚠️1
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
how many independent results does a supplier need
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
👀10🧊1
not a recommendation
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
coming back to this post the photos
👍12🧊7
log it either way
log it either way
sorry to jump in how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor