coming back after 26 months, has the standard changed
#vendor-verification 2026-02-01
Sunday65 messages14 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- seven_five_sweet — if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 13:17
- nordic_price_nils — genuine question we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, not advice obviously 13:46
- pioneer_pia — blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, still working it out 16:01
- stack_sceptic — while im here revoked stays in the log, ymmv 17:40
unrelated but verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
refresh on evidence
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
how many independent results does a supplier need
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
🙏1✅7😂9
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, still working it out
⚠️1🧪2
not a recommendation
genuine question we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, not advice obviously
| 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 |
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
right so a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, someone check my working
📈1✅2🙏8
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
🙏1🧪1
post the photos
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
🔥11
revoked stays in the log
📈1🤝16👀8
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
nothing gets deleted
thin evidence, happy to be corrected
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
thats evidence
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, still working it out
😂18🎉2
pattern not one result
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
thats not evidence
update from 7 months ago: BCH added evidence and the entry now reflects it, someone check my working
Archive lookup: chaser_chris first appears in this channel on 2025-08-10.
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
17:14marrow.mod pinned a message to this channel
coming back to this the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
while im here blinded is better
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
while im here revoked stays in the log, ymmv
[edited]🎉8📉4💀5
who decides, the mods or the room
log it either way
🙏2📉1
lot number or nothing
never for sale
🤝3📉17🎉6
pattern not one result
unrelated but has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
[edited]both numbers go in
does SGN being verified mean my vial is fine
post the photos
❤️15
how does a supplier get verification revoked
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
both numbers go in
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
[edited]🧪2❤️12
refresh on evidence
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
lot number or nothing