is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
#vendor-verification 2026-04-23
Thursday48 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- mcg_not_mg — if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score 18:19
- travel_cooler — two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers, thats just me 19:50
- septum_sal — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 20:22
- septum_sal — coming back after 19 months, has the standard changed 20:24
how does a supplier get verification revoked
who decides, the mods or the room
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
does TFC being verified mean my vial is fine
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
🧪1🔥5
while im here blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
pattern not one result
both numbers go in
refresh on evidence
thats not evidence
[edited]if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
📉5🧪5💀4
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
update from 13 months ago: JEEP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
thin evidence
[edited]has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
thats evidence
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
not a recommendation
log it either way
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers, thats just me
📈3👍8
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
[edited]i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
weights-monthly.csv
296 rows · not retained in the public archive
coming back after 19 months, has the standard changed
⚠️3🙏18📈14
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
lot number or nothing, for what its worth
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
*PeptideMeter not the other one
post the photos
quick one nothing gets deleted
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
Purity check: no report on file for lot C-4402. Nothing logged either way.