verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
[edited]🧊2❤️1
#vendor-verification 2026-05-22
Friday58 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- auckland_aliquot — update from 22 months ago: GGPeps added evidence and the entry now reflects it a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party.… 18:13
- adelaide_assay — two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers 18:41
- sedge_sources — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 21:23
log it either way
💀10📉8🙏2
sorry to jump in if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
both numbers go in
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
lot number or nothing
thats not evidence
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
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
👀3🙏1🧪3
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
thats evidence
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
coming back after 23 months, has the standard changed
nothing gets deleted
🤝13
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
post the photos
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
pattern not one result
ok so we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
quick one verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
blinded is better
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, for what its worth
update from 22 months ago: GGPeps added evidence and the entry now reflects it
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
👀4😂11
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
post the photos
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
🔥13
thin evidence
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
refresh on evidence
👀1
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
pattern not one result, we shall see
not a recommendation
sorry to jump in a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
thats evidence
follow up verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
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
pattern not one result
pattern not one result
blinded is better
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
post the photos
👍14✅9
both numbers go in
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
sorry to jump in the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
| 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 |
📈14⚠️1🧪4
never for sale
| 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
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
🙏1🧊1👍2
lot number or nothing