what actually counts as evidence for a verification
#vendor-verification 2026-04-16
Thursday34 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- reta_resting_hr — a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel 14:41
- lot_number_lou — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 15:53
- fasting_insulin — a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 16:37
- plus_sixteen — how does a supplier get verification revoked 16:53
- plus_sixteen — how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing 17:42
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
blinded is better
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
post the photos
sorry to jump in we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
👍4🙏3⚠️1
thats not evidence
update from 18 months ago: BCH added evidence and the entry now reflects it
ok so a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
refresh on evidence
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
medutest-report-e-2205.pdf
3 pages · 766 KB · not retained in the public archive
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
follow up i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
💀13📈7🤝7
nothing gets deleted
🙏1👍2😂10
ok so is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
how does a supplier get verification revoked
| 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 |
revoked stays in the log
👍3😂1
lot_number_louwhat does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or…
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
🙏18🔥4❤️6
log it either way
[edited]verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more, your mileage will differ
🔥5🧊1
unrelated but 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
[edited]⚠️3
does CPC being verified mean my vial is fine
while im here verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, ymmv
*VendorInvestigate not the other one