has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
#vendor-verification 2026-01-22
Thursday41 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- otto_swirls — what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 19:26
- reship_rita — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both… 19:48
- reship_rita — quick one i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 19:49
- blind_submit — update from 25 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it 20:20
- blind_submit — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 20:32
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
thats evidence
19:20tenpence pinned a message
log it either way
❤️8👀8
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
not a recommendation
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
quick one i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
who decides, the mods or the room
coming back after 25 months, has the standard changed
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
thats not evidence
slightly off topic but nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
update from 25 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
🔥3🧪7🤝15
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
blinded is better
❤️12👍4💀2
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
genuine question how many independent results does a supplier need
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
nothing gets deleted
👍16📉2
revoked stays in the log
⚠️5😂13
pattern not one result
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
refresh on evidence
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
post the photos
both numbers go in
never for sale
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log