verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
#vendor-verification 2025-10-18
Saturday31 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- relabel_watch — sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 14:48
- relabel_watch — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, n of 1 obviously 16:36
- knees_first — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 17:45
sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
😂6💀5
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
follow up a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
for the archive the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
❤️6
log it either way
[edited]chromatogram-overlay.png
1240 × 720 · 485 KB · not retained in the public archive
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
who decides, the mods or the room
Reminder for luerlok: dose day is today. Set 7 days ago.
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
💀1
coming back after 6 months, has the standard changed
how many independent results does a supplier need
pattern not one result
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, n of 1 obviously
❤️7📉4⚠️2
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
never for sale
both numbers go in
thin evidence
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
🙏18✅10📈15
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
janoshik-g-0641.pdf
2 pages · 850 KB · not retained in the public archive
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
📈7
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
does QYB being verified mean my vial is fine
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log