a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
#vendor-verification 2026-05-03
Sunday58 messages13 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
who decides, the mods or the room
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
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
coa-d-0718.pdf
1 page · 347 KB · not retained in the public archive
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
not a recommendation
👀1💀15🎉12
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
update on the earlier thing i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, take that with a pinch of salt
pattern not one result
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
lot number or nothing
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
update on the earlier thing if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
refresh on evidence
🔥9🤝11
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
how does a supplier get verification revoked
both numbers go in
while im here a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
❤️2👍1👀1
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
Verification log updated: QST — evidence added, status unchanged.
📉1
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
| 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 |
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
blinded is better
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
never for sale
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
🧪2🎉14
does FGP being verified mean my vial is fine
log it either way
post the photos
thin evidence
thats not evidence
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
update from 13 months ago: SGN added evidence and the entry now reflects it
😂4
both numbers go in, i have it written down somewhere
thats evidence
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
🧊10
coming back to this blinded is better, thats just me
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
nothing gets deleted
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
how many independent results does a supplier need
🧪15👀5💀3
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
🤝2
lot number or nothing
revoked stays in the log
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
Verification log updated: SWB — evidence added, status unchanged.
📈4🔥1
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
genuine question is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
never for sale, someone check my working
post the photos