#vendor-verification 2025-08-26

verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted

post the photos

quick one somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log

thats not evidence

refresh on evidence

the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line

log it either way

both numbers go in

update from 3 months ago: GGPeps added evidence and the entry now reflects it

if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution

we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, i could be wrong

pattern not one result

does WWB being verified mean my vial is fine
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted

thats evidence

a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all

i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier

coming back after 18 months, has the standard changed

verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more

do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones

what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises

not a recommendation

two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers

quick one how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing

if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score

a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both

a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, i have it written down somewhere

while im here we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern

thin evidence

does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter

blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record

revoked stays in the log

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

is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation

lot number or nothing, not advice obviously

verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently