a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
#vendor-verification 2025-08-20
Wednesday38 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- chlorhex — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 18:17
- relabel_watch — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 18:32
- chlorhex — update from 1 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it, we shall see 18:34
- split_dose_sam — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 19:45
- thursday_thea — if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 20:41
who decides, the mods or the room
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
🔥1📉13❤️11
pattern not one result
how many independent results does a supplier need
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
👍13
update from 1 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it, we shall see
😂17🔥2👀1
nothing gets deleted
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
[edited]two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
for the archive does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
👍2
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
Batch lookup E-2205: 9 independent reports on file, earliest 2025-06-03.
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
not a recommendation
post the photos
lot-log.csv
238 rows · not retained in the public archive
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
🔥3🤝2
thats evidence
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
does QSC being verified mean my vial is fine
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
log it either way
*Medutest not the other one
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
💀2
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
😂8🙏3🤝1
unrelated but a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
both numbers go in
coa-b-0329.pdf
1 page · 778 KB · not retained in the public archive
Archive lookup: customs_owl first appears in this channel on 2024-11-17.
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
*PeptideMeter not the other one
thats not evidence
slightly off topic but blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
[edited]the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, n of 1 obviously