#vendor-verification 2026-02-15

who decides, the mods or the room

i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count

the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, ill dig out the number

has anyone ever offered to pay for verification

somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log

what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves

blinded is better

two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers

why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored

is there a version of the log i can read chronologically

pattern not one result

what actually counts as evidence for a verification

is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation

thats evidence

verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted

a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel

update from 26 months ago: HJ added evidence and the entry now reflects it, still working it out

if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score

refresh on evidence

post the photos

Reminder for ten_of_ten: dose day is today. Set 7 days ago.

lot number or nothing

if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution

a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all

verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently

is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record

has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation

revoked stays in the log

not a recommendation