never for sale
#vendor-verification 2026-01-13
Tuesday25 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- electrolyte_eli — while im here i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 16:41
- quiet.hours — a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel 17:02
- quiet.hours — while im here we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry 17:13
- ollie_orders — a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an… 17:47
- munich_mgml — update from 19 months ago: Homopeptide added evidence and the entry now reflects it 17:58
lot number or nothing
while im here i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
💀1🤝4
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
who decides, the mods or the room
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
*Medutest not the other one
while im here we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from Medutest
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
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
update from 19 months ago: Homopeptide added evidence and the entry now reflects it
while im here is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
coming back after 12 months, has the standard changed
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
[edited]what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both