pattern not one result
#vendor-verification 2025-07-10
Thursday36 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- area_percent — nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes 17:22
- two_eight_c — what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 17:27
- per_mg_pete — verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, from memory 18:00
- per_mg_pete — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 18:08
- meniscus_mel — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 19:27
nothing gets deleted
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
update from 6 months ago: SWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
for the archive a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
17:19tenpence pinned a message
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
🎉1🧊1
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
👀8
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
🎉18😂4
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, ill dig out the number
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
coming back to this has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
👀1📈1😂2
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, from memory
✅16🤝5
blinded is better
[edited]how does a supplier get verification revoked
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
peptidemeter-summary-sg-1177.pdf
2 pages · 251 KB · not retained in the public archive
👍8🎉14
thats not evidence
🧪1🤝1
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
not a recommendation
post the photos
[edited]the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
🙏7😂1
lot number or nothing
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
🔥5🧊3
slightly off topic but if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
revoked stays in the log
Digest for the week of 2024-11-11 has been published.
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
how many independent results does a supplier need
both numbers go in
📉1
never for sale
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern