right so coming back after 11 months, has the standard changed
#vendor-verification 2026-04-02
Thursday62 messages14 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- dexa_or_bia — what actually counts as evidence for a verification 20:14
- relabel_watch — nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes 20:52
- vial_ledger — update from 26 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it 21:50
- lisbon_lot — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 22:29
- first_and_last_four — a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 23:23
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
🙏2
right so what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
🧊9✅2
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
⚠️4👀1
both numbers go in
not a recommendation
ok so the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, we shall see
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
🧊1
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, thats just me
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
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
🧪6🎉6
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, n of 1 obviously
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
nothing gets deleted
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
thin evidence
🙏8🔥1🤝15
log it either way
how does a supplier get verification revoked
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
thats evidence
lot number or nothing
🔥9
blinded is better
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all, ask me again in a month
pattern not one result
post the photos
update from 26 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it
🎉1⚠️18
never for sale
refresh on evidence
revoked stays in the log
🙏10📉13
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
thats evidence
thats not evidence
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
refresh on evidence
🙏10
who decides, the mods or the room
does QYB being verified mean my vial is fine
post the photos
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
🎉14👀5⚠️3
thats not evidence
🎉18
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
[edited]has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
log it either way
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
sorry to jump in pattern not one result
⚠️9🤝1
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
🤝12
*that should say weekly