we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, ask me again in a month
[edited]#vendor-verification 2026-06-14
Sunday67 messages14 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- sol_sends — a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 19:46
- tb500_tobias — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, i think 20:54
- fibre_first — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 21:13
- fibre_first — if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 21:55
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
how many independent results does a supplier need
🎉9
post the photos
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
pattern not one result
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
lot number or nothing
🙏6📈8💀5
who decides, the mods or the room
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
coming back to this verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
nothing gets deleted
refresh on evidence
both numbers go in
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, i could be wrong
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, not advice obviously
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
👍5💀9🧪1
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, i could be wrong
update on the earlier thing two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
✅2
slightly off topic but the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
never for sale
thin evidence
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
log it either way
sorry to jump in is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
❤️3
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
thats not evidence
📈3👀1
update from 19 months ago: QYB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine, i could be wrong
blinded is better
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, i think
🧪13
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
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, happy to be corrected
not a recommendation
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
👍8⚠️1💀14
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, thats one data point
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
pattern not one result, i have it written down somewhere
thats not evidence
👀11🎉7🧊1
blinded is better
Inter-lab diff for lot A-2418: 99.2% vs 99%. Within expected range.
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
🙏14
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
revoked stays in the log, thats one data point
🧊1
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
coming back after 23 months, has the standard changed
*Medutest not the other one
never for sale
🎉4
revoked stays in the log
✅5😂1🧊12
thats evidence
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
how does a supplier get verification revoked
log it either way
23:10quiet.hours pinned a message