who decides, the mods or the room
🧪1
#vendor-verification 2026-05-08
Friday43 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- evidence_or_not — coming back after 16 months, has the standard changed 15:43
- VialBot — Purity check: no report on file for lot D-0718. Nothing logged either way. 15:50
- bac_water_bill — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 18:15
- VialBot — Digest for the week of 2026-03-25 has been published. 18:17
coming back after 16 months, has the standard changed
| 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 |
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
🙏8🧪1
Purity check: no report on file for lot D-0718. Nothing logged either way.
✅1👍15
thats evidence
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
coa-h-2814.pdf
1 page · 585 KB · not retained in the public archive
pattern not one result
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, someone check my working
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
ok so has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
🙏4🤝2🧊2
quick one has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
update on the earlier thing does WXT being verified mean my vial is fine
refresh on evidence
thin evidence
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine, thats just me
post the photos
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
for the archive somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
🔥17🧪4✅4
Digest for the week of 2026-03-25 has been published.
🙏4💀3
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
thats not evidence
🔥13
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
nothing gets deleted
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
blinded is better
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
not a recommendation
[edited]is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
how does a supplier get verification revoked
🤝1✅8