log it either way
#vendor-verification 2026-03-15
Sunday64 messages13 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- adelaide_assay — blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs 19:59
- willow_waits — somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, happy to be corrected 20:27
- no_escrow_nate — coming back after 5 months, has the standard changed a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 20:33
- month_six_me — right so what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves 21:20
- vale_vials — update from 25 months ago: SSA added evidence and the entry now reflects it 22:20
sorry to jump in a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
transit-times.csv
271 rows · not retained in the public archive
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
update from 3 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it, anyway
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, someone check my working
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
lot number or nothing
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, take that with a pinch of salt
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
for the archive the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
transit-times.csv
406 rows · not retained in the public archive
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, still working it out
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
📈11🧊2📉4
*Medutest not the other one
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
does WXT being verified mean my vial is fine
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
✅5
how does a supplier get verification revoked
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
nothing gets deleted
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
👀11
both numbers go in
Archive lookup: split_the_cost first appears in this channel on 2025-12-06.
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, happy to be corrected
🙏13🧪6✅2
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
genuine question i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
coming back after 5 months, has the standard changed
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
🤝12
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
[edited][redacted at member request] · archive policy
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
genuine question we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
right so what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
[edited]blinded is better
right so what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
| 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 |
pattern not one result
📈1
quill_questionsgenuine question we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with…
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
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
update on the earlier thing a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
thin evidence
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
not a recommendation
revoked stays in the log
how many independent results does a supplier need
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
lot number or nothing
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
post the photos, still working it out
blinded is better, happy to be corrected
update from 25 months ago: SSA added evidence and the entry now reflects it
🧪4👀17
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
❤️6🔥1📉4
who decides, the mods or the room
blinded is better
thats evidence
thats evidence
thats not evidence
both numbers go in