#vendor-verification 2026-06-12

Friday20 messages4 participantstimes are UTC

Highlights from this day

reta_resting_hr — ok so a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 17:55
reta_resting_hr — we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry 18:17
lipase_lore — for the archive update from 25 months ago: TFC added evidence and the entry now reflects it 18:47

lot number or nothing

does FGP being verified mean my vial is fine

Inter-lab diff for lot E-2205: 96.8% vs 98.1%. Within expected range.

pattern not one result

🧊5🎉10

blinded is better

does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything

✅1

what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises

[edited]

is there a version of the log i can read chronologically

ok so a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited

👀13🔥2💀16

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

🔥1

nothing gets deleted

the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line

slightly off topic but verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more

we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry

📉14🤝8📈18

slightly off topic but does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter

both numbers go in

👍14🧪10

thats not evidence

for the archive update from 25 months ago: TFC added evidence and the entry now reflects it

👀1

the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division