what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
#vendor-verification 2026-03-02
Monday48 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
nothing gets deleted
ok so is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
🔥17👍9
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
log it either way
right so how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
not a recommendation
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
[edited]both numbers go in
transit-times.csv
148 rows · not retained in the public archive
pattern not one result
thats not evidence
how does a supplier get verification revoked
update from 9 months ago: MKM added evidence and the entry now reflects it
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
blinded is better
🎉2✅1😂10
revoked stays in the log
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
❤️5👀2🙏12
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, someone check my working
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
update on the earlier thing a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
lot number or nothing
🧪3🎉4
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
✅2
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
🧪1📉11
does WXT being verified mean my vial is fine
📉6
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
quick one how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
thin evidence
🎉6📈5👀17
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
thats evidence
🙏18
*that should say weekly
coming back after 24 months, has the standard changed
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
right so the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
never for sale
post the photos
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
update from 20 months ago: QSC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
refresh on evidence
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
👍1
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises