is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
#vendor-verification 2025-10-10
Friday53 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- gall_bladder_gav — has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation 10:14
- rotterdam_recon — if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score 13:10
- turnaround_tam — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 13:16
- is_this_forever — what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 14:39
- rotterdam_recon — why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored 15:00
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
👀12📉7
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
quick one a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
how many independent results does a supplier need
coming back after 25 months, has the standard changed
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
ok so what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
both numbers go in
refresh on evidence
slightly off topic but how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
✅1👀5
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
[edited]we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
does Homopeptide being verified mean my vial is fine
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
revoked stays in the log
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
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
🎉16🙏7📉15
update from 15 months ago: MKM added evidence and the entry now reflects it
genuine question if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
⚠️6❤️2💀10
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
for the archive a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
thats evidence
site-rotation-map.png
1000 × 700 · 292 KB · not retained in the public archive
✅10🧊3
slightly off topic but do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
never for sale
while im here we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
thats not evidence
🙏14👍10
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
✅1💀17
*Janoshik not the other one
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
👀6🙏5
post the photos
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
how does a supplier get verification revoked
is_this_forevera supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being…
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
nothing gets deleted
[edited]💀18🧪16✅18
not a recommendation
rotterdam_reconif the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than…
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
lot number or nothing
who decides, the mods or the room
pattern not one result, happy to be corrected