coming back to this we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
#vendor-verification 2026-05-28
Thursday40 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ten_of_ten — while im here if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score 09:04
- ten_of_ten — we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries,… 09:15
- lot_number_lou — sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification 10:06
- cold_chain_cmdr — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, thats just me 10:46
- VialBot — New independent result logged — SWB, lot H-2814, purity 98.6% (VendorInvestigate). 11:33
blinded is better
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
lot number or nothing
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more, your mileage will differ
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
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
while im here if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
👀8📈9
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
🤝11🧊17📉3
genuine question two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
🧪13🙏17
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
[edited][redacted at member request] · archive policy
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
nothing gets deleted
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, thats just me
🎉12✅1
both numbers go in
🎉6😂1
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel, from memory
revoked stays in the log
not a recommendation
[edited]what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
who decides, the mods or the room
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
New independent result logged — SWB, lot H-2814, purity 98.6% (VendorInvestigate).
unrelated but what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
does SGN being verified mean my vial is fine
slightly off topic but what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
post the photos
update from 13 months ago: QSC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
follow up thats evidence
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited