thin evidence
#vendor-verification 2026-05-07
Thursday53 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- unsolicited_dm — if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 10:56
- surpass_two — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 13:36
- bea_reconstitutes — update from 24 months ago: CPC added evidence and the entry now reflects it 16:59
- protein_floor — two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers 18:20
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, i have it written down somewhere
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
sorry to jump in verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
👀12🤝10
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
both numbers go in
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
update on the earlier thing the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
post the photos
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
🧊1
revoked stays in the log
weights-monthly.csv
208 rows · not retained in the public archive
thats evidence
🎉10
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
| 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 |
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
not a recommendation
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
how does a supplier get verification revoked
while im here the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, anyway
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
never for sale
update from 12 months ago: TFC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
❤️7🔥18✅4
ok so verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
refresh on evidence
follow up we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
🤝11
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
log it either way
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
Recon calculator: 10mg in 0.5ml = 2.5mg/ml.
pattern not one result
⚠️13✅4
blinded is better
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
how many independent results does a supplier need
thats not evidence
🧪1
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
update from 24 months ago: CPC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
[edited]❤️2🧊1📈16
for the archive pattern not one result
👍15📉1🧪1
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
⚠️3👍7😂14
bea_reconstitutesthe log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters…
who decides, the mods or the room
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
⚠️11🎉7
coming back after 18 months, has the standard changed
📉10
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from Medutest