does BCH being verified mean my vial is fine
#vendor-verification 2025-12-14
Sunday53 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- VialBot — New independent result logged — GGPeps, lot F-1330, purity 96.8% (PeptideMeter). 11:15
- VialBot — On this day 6 years ago this channel logged 52 messages. 11:40
- fibre_first — ok so the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line verification has never been for sale and never… 12:17
- oasis_ola — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 17:13
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
pattern not one result
never for sale
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
🧊3👀2🙏2
New independent result logged — GGPeps, lot F-1330, purity 96.8% (PeptideMeter).
📉3❤️8
post the photos
Reminder set. I will post here in 9 days.
On this day 6 years ago this channel logged 52 messages.
👍14😂2
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
Purity check: no report on file for lot KP-0925. Nothing logged either way.
Recon calculator: 30mg in 2ml = 2.5mg/ml.
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
thats not evidence
🎉2👍11
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
ok so the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
📉2📈13
unrelated but the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
not a recommendation
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, ymmv
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
fridge-temps.csv
536 rows · not retained in the public archive
update from 3 months ago: QSC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
how many independent results does a supplier need
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
how does a supplier get verification revoked
nothing gets deleted
revoked stays in the log
😂1
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
👀1😂4💀1
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
update on the earlier thing two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
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
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
💀10📈3🎉13
coming back after 8 months, has the standard changed
both numbers go in
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
thin evidence
🙏1😂2👍6
update on the earlier thing a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
blinded is better
fridge-temps.csv
304 rows · not retained in the public archive
refresh on evidence
sorry to jump in the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
log it either way, ill dig out the number