somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
#vendor-verification 2025-12-18
Thursday42 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ms_ms_mira — does HJ being verified mean my vial is fine 20:57
- two_labs_two_answers — quick one how many independent results does a supplier need 21:26
- food_noise_off — blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs 21:47
- two_labs_two_answers — update on the earlier thing why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored 21:51
- two_labs_two_answers — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line 21:59
who decides, the mods or the room
📈1
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
does HJ being verified mean my vial is fine
📉3🔥3🎉18
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
lot number or nothing
thats evidence
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
coming back to this we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
refresh on evidence
quick one how many independent results does a supplier need
⚠️12🤝16
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
log it either way
🔥1⚠️14👀17
blinded is better
🙏2😂1👍12
sorry to jump in is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, thats just me
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
| 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 |
thats not evidence
update on the earlier thing why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
[edited]🙏1👀14
not a recommendation
🔥1
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, ill dig out the number
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
📈12🧪3🙏6
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
for the archive does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from Medutest
food_noise_offtwo labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
🔥2
thin evidence
pattern not one result
🎉5❤️8
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
both numbers go in
post the photos
🧊14
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
nothing gets deleted
revoked stays in the log
never for sale
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
*Janoshik not the other one
coming back to this update from 6 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record