nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
#vendor-verification 2026-06-05
Friday61 messages16 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- verify_or_dont — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 08:39
- vik_verifies — does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything 09:28
- chlorhex — has anyone ever offered to pay for verification 09:54
- seizure_letter — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 15:37
- nine_nine_one — is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 15:40
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
thats evidence
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
📈11🧊15🎉8
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more, n of 1 obviously
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
[edited]blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
both numbers go in
Purity check: no report on file for lot B-0114. Nothing logged either way.
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
| 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 |
who decides, the mods or the room
On this day 6 years ago this channel logged 42 messages.
thats not evidence
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
🧪14🤝16👀1
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
pattern not one result
unrelated but does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
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
lot number or nothing
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
right so a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
📉9
thin evidence
update from 20 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
not a recommendation
does QSC being verified mean my vial is fine
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, i have it written down somewhere
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
refresh on evidence
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
revoked stays in the log
post the photos
😂5
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
blinded is better
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
log it either way
nothing gets deleted
never for sale
fridge-thermometer.png
800 × 800 · 375 KB · not retained in the public archive
log it either way, i have it written down somewhere
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
📉1👍3🧊10
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
thin evidence
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
😂6💀3📉13
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
coming back to this never for sale
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
coming back after 2 months, has the standard changed
how many independent results does a supplier need