is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
🔥15
#vendor-verification 2026-05-29
Friday63 messages13 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- tansy_tests — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 02:34
- amylin_amy — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 04:13
- lean_mass_lex — update on the earlier thing two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log 06:29
- lean_mass_lex — does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate 06:35
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
⚠️12❤️16
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
both numbers go in
⚠️16
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
📉1
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
🤝2
not a recommendation
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, not advice obviously
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, happy to be corrected
blinded is better
janoshik-f-1330.pdf
2 pages · 518 KB · not retained in the public archive
refresh on evidence
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
coming back after 7 months, has the standard changed
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
[edited]a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
📈3✅15🧪16
pattern not one result
slightly off topic but do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
revoked stays in the log
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
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
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
👀10👍1
never for sale
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
thin evidence
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
update on the earlier thing two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
🧪4🧊16
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
🤝15📉8
post the photos
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
thats not evidence
log it either way
nothing gets deleted
who decides, the mods or the room
lot number or nothing
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
✅8
update from 2 months ago: SWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
🎉1
blinded is better
thats evidence
how does a supplier get verification revoked
Channel stats, last 30 days: 39 messages from 36 members.
refresh on evidence
🤝12
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine, i have it written down somewhere
🤝1
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
peptidemeter-summary-kp-0925.pdf
2 pages · 199 KB · not retained in the public archive
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
coming back to this both numbers go in, take that with a pinch of salt
thats evidence
thats evidence
never for sale
while im here refresh on evidence
🧊1
post the photos, anyway
Channel stats, last 30 days: 40 messages from 38 members.