does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from Medutest
#vendor-verification 2025-10-24
Friday35 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- gip_glp_gil — how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor 19:45
- pharmac_pen — do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones 19:59
- pharmac_pen — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line 20:08
- underfill_uma — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 20:16
- tga_notice — why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored 22:36
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
how does a supplier get verification revoked
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
*PeptideMeter not the other one
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
🧪4🙏5
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, thats one data point
refresh on evidence
| 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 |
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
💀15🧊1📈1
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
📈14
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
😂2✅1
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
📈1🤝4
how many independent results does a supplier need
never for sale
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
blinded is better
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
thats evidence
✅3👀7
revoked stays in the log
💀2😂17⚠️15
for the archive what actually counts as evidence for a verification
update from 26 months ago: BCH added evidence and the entry now reflects it
[edited]not a recommendation
🤝2👀13🧊8
post the photos
slightly off topic but has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
right so how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
📈1
quick one the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, i think
[edited]for the archive coming back after 24 months, has the standard changed
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
😂7
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier