not a recommendation
#vendor-verification 2025-11-02
Sunday42 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- rae_labels — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 09:39
- monoisotopic — nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, still working it out 12:12
- slow.taper — is there a version of the log i can read chronologically 15:11
- slow.taper — a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 15:12
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
never for sale
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
👀6🎉14📈2
revoked stays in the log
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
❤️1
post the photos
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
📈13🎉2
does QSC being verified mean my vial is fine
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
thats evidence
🤝8🔥1
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
thin evidence
who decides, the mods or the room
genuine question do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
refresh on evidence
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
lot number or nothing
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
❤️5
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, still working it out
👀11📉8🔥11
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
thats not evidence
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
📉1
slightly off topic but i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
blinded is better
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
both numbers go in
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
while im here update from 21 months ago: ERP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
❤️5🧪15📉9
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
📈1😂12🤝1
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers