is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
#vendor-verification 2026-04-22
Wednesday29 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- nausea_window — update on the earlier thing does WXT being verified mean my vial is fine 20:26
- madrid_mg — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 21:31
- meal_prep_mick — update from 6 months ago: WWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it 21:42
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
nothing gets deleted
update on the earlier thing does WXT being verified mean my vial is fine
20:35quiet.hours pinned a message to this channel
coming back after 16 months, has the standard changed
how does a supplier get verification revoked
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
*Janoshik not the other one
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, i think
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
refresh on evidence
📉6
thats evidence
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
right so what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
log it either way
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, i have it written down somewhere
while im here a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
*Medutest not the other one
thats not evidence
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
📈5✅1
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
*Medutest not the other one
update from 6 months ago: WWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, someone check my working