the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
#vendor-verification 2025-07-06
Sunday55 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- auckland_aliquot — a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 18:02
- meniscus_mel — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 19:05
- half_life_hal — somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log 19:08
- lot_number_lou — two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log 20:53
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
does CPC being verified mean my vial is fine
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
📈17
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
revoked stays in the log
🤝4
thats evidence
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
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
for the archive a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
❤️7
log it either way
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
⚠️9💀2
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
📈12👀11
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
never for sale
sorry to jump in the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
pattern not one result
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
refresh on evidence
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
coming back after 7 months, has the standard changed
💀4
update from 12 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
*Medutest not the other one
thats not evidence
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
post the photos
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
🧊4📉12
both numbers go in
thin evidence, we shall see
lot number or nothing
who decides, the mods or the room
blinded is better, ymmv
👍12
revoked stays in the log
how does a supplier get verification revoked
not a recommendation
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
revoked stays in the log, we shall see
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line