a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
#vendor-verification 2025-07-20
Sunday51 messages13 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- vacuum_vic — 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 15:31
- appetite_back — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 15:47
- vial_ledger — does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from Medutest 16:08
- relabel_watch — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 17:15
- relabel_watch — follow up who decides, the mods or the room 17:16
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
🧪1🤝7👍5
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
nothing gets deleted
refresh on evidence
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
🔥18
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
[edited]*PeptideMeter not the other one
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
| Evidence | Counts? |
|---|---|
| Independent report, lot you bought, lot number legible | yes |
| Independent report, no lot number | no |
| Supplier certificate only | no |
| Screenshot of a report | no |
| Blinded pooled submission | yes, for the pool |
| A friend who said it was fine | no |
📉12🧊18👍12
update from 15 months ago: HJ added evidence and the entry now reflects it
follow up why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from Medutest
💀8📉17
New independent result logged — WWB, lot G-0641, purity 97.4% (PeptideMeter).
how many independent results does a supplier need
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
post the photos
🤝3🧪17
*PeptideMeter not the other one
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
never for sale
[edited]lot number or nothing
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
[edited]👀7😂5🧊12
follow up who decides, the mods or the room
⚠️3🔥13
does WWB being verified mean my vial is fine
right so nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
log it either way
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
how does a supplier get verification revoked
both numbers go in
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
pattern not one result
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
Assay note: FGP lot D-0718 reported at 99.2% of label content.
👀1
sorry to jump in thats not evidence
unrelated but the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
Purity check: no report on file for lot KP-0925. Nothing logged either way.
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
update on the earlier thing does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
coming back to this two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
Assay note: QYB lot B-0114 reported at 98.6% of label content.
not a recommendation
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor