a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
fridge-temps.csv
435 rows · not retained in the public archive
#vendor-verification 2026-05-13
Wednesday64 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- assay_not_purity — slightly off topic but does TFC being verified mean my vial is fine 20:58
- cagri_curious — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, ymmv 21:09
- gradient_greg — two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers 21:30
how does a supplier get verification revoked
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
[edited]has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
20:42tenpence pinned a message to this channel
quick one we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
follow up a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, thats one data point
🔥1🙏9👍1
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
peptidemeter-summary-b-0114.pdf
2 pages · 665 KB · not retained in the public archive
slightly off topic but does TFC being verified mean my vial is fine
🙏12👀10📈6
revoked stays in the log
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
post the photos
👀4🎉3💀8
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, ymmv
📉3💀1⚠️14
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
who decides, the mods or the room
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
thats evidence
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
🧊16🤝8🧪16
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
update from 13 months ago: SWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
update on the earlier thing how many independent results does a supplier need
refresh on evidence
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
On this day 3 years ago this channel logged 112 messages.
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
not a recommendation
lot-log.csv
903 rows · not retained in the public archive
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
genuine question verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
blinded is better
both numbers go in
sorry to jump in is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
update on the earlier thing two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
🔥18😂9📈2
*Medutest not the other one
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
thats not evidence
log it either way
nothing gets deleted
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
coming back to this does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
thats not evidence
genuine question blinded is better
lot number or nothing
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
coming back after 13 months, has the standard changed
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
[edited]log it either way
🎉10
post the photos
thin evidence
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry