the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
#vendor-verification 2026-05-25
Monday42 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- sharps_bin_sid — follow up what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 19:03
- VialBot — On this day 5 years ago this channel logged 44 messages. 19:04
- evidence_or_not — if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, not advice obviously 19:49
- secretagogue_sy — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 20:40
- myrrh_measures — is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable 21:01
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
follow up what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
❤️9
On this day 5 years ago this channel logged 44 messages.
🧊17🎉1
not a recommendation
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
how does a supplier get verification revoked
update from 1 months ago: TFC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
does KP being verified mean my vial is fine
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
for the archive how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
thin evidence
⚠️1
genuine question verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, not advice obviously
🎉13
refresh on evidence
blinded is better
unrelated but a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
who decides, the mods or the room
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
20:25tenpence pinned a message to this channel
log it either way
pattern not one result
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
[edited]fridge-thermometer.png
800 × 800 · 925 KB · not retained in the public archive
thats evidence
📈3👀1💀2
lot number or nothing
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
evidence_or_notgenuine question verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard…
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
site-rotation-map.png
1000 × 700 · 515 KB · not retained in the public archive
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, still working it out
both numbers go in
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, happy to be corrected
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
post the photos
💀18
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
🤝2🔥3
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score