i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
#vendor-verification 2025-08-25
Monday43 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- oasis_ola — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, not advice obviously 05:25
- rotate_the_site — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 07:35
- rotate_the_site — nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes 08:49
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
unrelated but a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
⚠️1
thats not evidence
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
blinded is better
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
👍1👀3💀2
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
🔥14
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
✅5🎉1
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
update from 10 months ago: BCH added evidence and the entry now reflects it
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, not advice obviously
⚠️12🙏17❤️1
pattern not one result
[edited]nothing gets deleted
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
👍14
sorry to jump in verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
thin evidence
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
post the photos
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
🔥16
slightly off topic but a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
both numbers go in
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
| 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 |
⚠️2👀14🧪18
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
log it either way
who decides, the mods or the room
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
never for sale
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution