for the archive a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
#vendor-verification 2025-09-04
Thursday29 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- blank_run — for the archive a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 18:30
- hiccup_hollis — sorry to jump in if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 19:10
- hiccup_hollis — ok so what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 19:16
- relabel_watch — the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now 19:21
- first_month_fi — update from 24 months ago: QSC added evidence and the entry now reflects it 19:53
nothing gets deleted
🎉18📈1✅1
refresh on evidence
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
19:08tenpence pinned a message to this channel
sorry to jump in if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
❤️1
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
[edited]i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
ok so what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
🙏6
revoked stays in the log
how does a supplier get verification revoked
thin evidence
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
update from 24 months ago: QSC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
post the photos
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
lot number or nothing
😂1
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
unrelated but does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
never for sale
not a recommendation
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from Janoshik