we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, ask me again in a month
✅9
#vendor-verification 2026-05-16
Saturday32 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
🤝15✅10🧪2
log it either way
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
💀9
how does a supplier get verification revoked
thats not evidence
Channel stats, last 30 days: 123 messages from 17 members.
lot number or nothing
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
📉2👍12
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
💀17⚠️14👀13
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
quick one if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
pattern not one result
👀4
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
coming back after 1 months, has the standard changed
💀2
post the photos
🔥4❤️1💀11
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, n of 1 obviously
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
medutest-report-a-2601.pdf
3 pages · 843 KB · not retained in the public archive
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more, your mileage will differ
who decides, the mods or the room
👍18🧪15
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
thats evidence
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
both numbers go in
💀9🧊1❤️3
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
right so a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
🧊1
Verification log updated: SGN — evidence added, status unchanged.
revoked stays in the log
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently