follow up is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
#vendor-verification 2026-03-28
Saturday33 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- sharps_bin_sid — what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 12:16
- auckland_aliquot — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 13:56
- sol_sends — does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 14:06
- sol_sends — do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones 14:21
- sol_sends — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 14:23
both numbers go in
coa-c-4402.pdf
1 page · 329 KB · not retained in the public archive
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
slightly off topic but the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
👀6🤝16👍6
update from 1 months ago: QSC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
coming back after 12 months, has the standard changed
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
genuine question is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
post the photos
*Medutest not the other one
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
blinded is better
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
🔥6
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
peptidemeter-summary-g-0641.pdf
2 pages · 821 KB · not retained in the public archive
auckland_aliquotblinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we…
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
fridge-temps.csv
96 rows · not retained in the public archive
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
fridge-temps.csv
807 rows · not retained in the public archive
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all, n of 1 obviously
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
never for sale
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, happy to be corrected
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
thats not evidence
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
🧪1
log it either way
🤝13