the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
👀9
#vendor-verification 2026-05-27
Wednesday19 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- steady_state_sue — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 14:55
- steady_state_sue — if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 15:21
- VialBot — On this day 6 years ago this channel logged 43 messages. 16:51
- nordic_price_nils — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, thats one data point 18:05
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, thats just me
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
🔥1⚠️18📉11
never for sale
nothing gets deleted
refresh on evidence
thats evidence
On this day 6 years ago this channel logged 43 messages.
✅7❤️9
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
ok so how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
log it either way
both numbers go in
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, thats one data point
genuine question a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all