who decides, the mods or the room
#vendor-verification 2025-10-08
Wednesday54 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- declared_value — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line 07:38
- acetate_ash — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in… 08:29
- verify_or_dont — two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers 08:50
- retention_time — what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves 09:23
- tenpence — a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 12:13
revoked stays in the log
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
👍9✅1
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
how many independent results does a supplier need
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
coming back after 26 months, has the standard changed
does SWB being verified mean my vial is fine
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, i think
nothing gets deleted
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
| 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 |
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
lot number or nothing
update on the earlier thing the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, anyway
not a recommendation
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, still working it out
pattern not one result
🧪15📈6
blinded is better
😂8🧪11
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
🧊16
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel, we shall see
post the photos
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
thats not evidence
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
| 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 |
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
✅7
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, happy to be corrected
🧪2
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
blinded is better, thats just me
thin evidence
update from 15 months ago: QSC added evidence and the entry now reflects it, n of 1 obviously
both numbers go in
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
[edited]🎉16🤝2❤️2
how does a supplier get verification revoked
unrelated but the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
📉1
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
thats not evidence
update on the earlier thing if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
📉1💀1
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
💀9
right so does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
✅5
nothing gets deleted