slightly off topic but a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
#vendor-verification 2026-02-06
Friday59 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- VialBot — Verification log updated: WWB — evidence added, status unchanged. 11:47
- typosquat_tay — if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score 12:01
- typosquat_tay — quick one the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 12:46
- monoisotopic — what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 13:32
- monoisotopic — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, not advice obviously 13:50
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
update from 24 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
fridge-temps.csv
856 rows · not retained in the public archive
Verification log updated: WWB — evidence added, status unchanged.
📉14⚠️10
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
📈12❤️14📉13
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
who decides, the mods or the room
quick one i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
🔥1👍5
lot number or nothing
| 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 |
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
slightly off topic but nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
thats not evidence
quick one the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
🧪6🤝7✅5
how does a supplier get verification revoked
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
👀14🎉1🧪9
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
revoked stays in the log
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, not advice obviously
🙏8❤️10
thats evidence
pattern not one result
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
how many independent results does a supplier need
[edited]a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
🔥9
coming back after 2 months, has the standard changed
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
💀8
ok so how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
🙏18
log it either way
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, take that with a pinch of salt
nothing gets deleted
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
refresh on evidence
never for sale
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
update on the earlier thing does Homopeptide being verified mean my vial is fine
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
⚠️1
not a recommendation
both numbers go in
thin evidence
both numbers go in
post the photos
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
lot number or nothing
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
📉2🔥2❤️2
blinded is better
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
update from 1 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
post the photos