i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
#vendor-verification 2026-03-01
Sunday43 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- deadspace — somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log 12:04
- deadspace — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 12:06
- rezept_rolf — we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, i think 14:17
- ferrous_ash — for the archive what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 15:42
thin evidence
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel, anyway
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
update from 19 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
⚠️5🧪2👀8
cold_chain_cmdri have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient…
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
❤️11📉4
unrelated but we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, thats one data point
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
impersonator_ipblinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we…
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, i have it written down somewhere
how many independent results does a supplier need
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, happy to be corrected
🧪2
nothing gets deleted
never for sale
thats evidence
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine, n of 1 obviously
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
for the archive if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, i think
🧊8📈13
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
🎉2
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
does BCH being verified mean my vial is fine
for the archive what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
📈3👀1🎉1
both numbers go in, i could be wrong
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
log it either way
16:04ferrous_ash pinned a message to this channel
thats not evidence
*that should say weekly
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
coming back after 22 months, has the standard changed
who decides, the mods or the room
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution