what actually counts as evidence for a verification
#vendor-verification 2025-08-28
Thursday49 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- verify_or_dont — somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log 21:13
- crimp_top — if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score 22:28
- split_shipment — does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything 22:54
- split_shipment — has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation 23:27
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
update from 26 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it
not a recommendation
refresh on evidence
thats not evidence
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
💀7
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
*PeptideMeter not the other one
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
while im here how does a supplier get verification revoked
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
[edited]nothing gets deleted
🧪5💀1
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
coming back after 23 months, has the standard changed
📈3
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
log it either way
🔥11🤝11
*Medutest not the other one
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
how many independent results does a supplier need
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
revoked stays in the log
who decides, the mods or the room
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
lot number or nothing
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
✅7🧪5
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
thats evidence
does TFC being verified mean my vial is fine
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
📉1
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
😂1✅8
sorry to jump in blinded is better
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
| 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 |
never for sale