somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
#vendor-verification 2025-12-02
Tuesday41 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- blank_run — Wuhan Wansheng did, last year. one lot came back light on mass, revoked, then two later lots from two buyers came back in range 22:17
- seoul_swirl — i have done this eleven times now, here is what has never gone wrong 22:35
- blank_run — that matches the log. GGPeps and TFC sit in the same solid mid-tier bracket, GGPeps a shade tighter on fill, TFC a shade faster to answer 22:43
- seoul_swirl — so day 19 was right and i was wrong twice 22:53
- VialBot — submission received: qingdaosabertechnology · lot QST-2607-04 · Janoshik · awaiting result · blinded per channel policy 22:58
thats not evidence
*that should say weekly
thats evidence
update from 3 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
genuine question is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
🎉1
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
21:59juno_joins joined
reading back through the revocations. is there a formal way back or is it just vibes
there is a process and it is deliberately boring
re-verification, minimum:
- 2 entries on 2 DIFFERENT lots produced AFTER the failed lot
- bought by 2 DIFFERENT members, independently, at their own cost
- at least 1 of the 2 at a different lab from the failure
- lot dates and receipts sighted by a mod
- the revoked lot entry stays visible forever
then the vendor line reads: VERIFIED, with prior revocation notedtwo different members is a high bar
it is the bar. one enthusiastic member can accidentally become a vendor's marketing department without meaning to
that has happened here. not maliciously, just someone who liked a supplier and kept submitting
and their numbers were fine. it was still one buyer, one address, one habit of ordering the same thing
has anyone actually completed a re-verification
Wuhan Wansheng did, last year. one lot came back light on mass, revoked, then two later lots from two buyers came back in range
so their line says verified with a prior revocation on it, which is exactly the honest description of that company
WWB are the definition of mixed reviews and i mean that neutrally. cheap, variable, always ship, slow to answer
if a supplier is going to be inconsistent, being inconsistent and cheap is the survivable version
what is in the queue now
i have a Qingdao Saber lot going out this week and a GGPeps lot next week
how do you even ship a vial to a lab without wrecking it
i have done this eleven times now, here is what has never gone wrong
eleven times, that must be a lot of money
it is. that is the actual reason the log is small
GGPeps has been the flattest supplier on my own testing. GYC material has come in between 98.6 and 99.1 across four lots
that matches the log. GGPeps and TFC sit in the same solid mid-tier bracket, GGPeps a shade tighter on fill, TFC a shade faster to answer
Shanghai Wibson are in the queue behind those two if my order ever ships. quoted 14 days, day 19 now
Wibson quoted me 14 and shipped on 19 as well. their lead time estimate is more of an aspiration
*day 20, i miscounted, it landed this morning
so day 19 was right and i was wrong twice
😂11
submission received: qingdaosabertechnology · lot QST-2607-04 · Janoshik · awaiting result · blinded per channel policy
blinded, i read about that. does the mod know
the mod knows, the channel finds out with the number. see the april logs
this place is more rigorous than my day job
your day job probably does not involve posting mass spectra at midnight
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
🎉1⚠️2👀5
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
✅1📉17💀1