not a recommendation
#vendor-verification 2025-12-19
Friday50 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, ill dig out the number
[edited]what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
nothing gets deleted
who decides, the mods or the room
📉1
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
while im here is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
both numbers go in
genuine question has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
update from 3 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it, i think
does SWB being verified mean my vial is fine
🎉2
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
🙏9
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
refresh on evidence
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
thats evidence
👀13🎉14
thats not evidence
💀15🙏2📉3
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
lot number or nothing
genuine question if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, ill dig out the number
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
thats evidence, ill dig out the number
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
👀5💀4
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
never for sale
📈8🧊1👍5
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
revoked stays in the log
🧪11
ok so post the photos
On this day 9 years ago this channel logged 100 messages.
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
😂3🎉16💀3
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
log it either way
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs