is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
#vendor-verification 2026-06-15
Monday63 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- half_life_hal — update from 11 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it 20:36
- bengaluru_bac — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 21:39
- fasting_insulin — for the archive a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 21:45
- invoice_mismatch — for the archive does BCH being verified mean my vial is fine 22:14
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
⚠️1🧪3
genuine question how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
for the archive what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
🙏2
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
update from 11 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it
🎉13⚠️2
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
not a recommendation
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
log it either way
[edited]what actually counts as evidence for a verification
refresh on evidence
[edited]❤️15🔥1
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
sorry to jump in somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, someone check my working
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
🤝10
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
sorry to jump in we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, ymmv
both numbers go in
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
quick one a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
genuine question a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
pattern not one result
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
| 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 |
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
how does a supplier get verification revoked
[edited]sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
Batch lookup A-2601: 6 independent reports on file, earliest 2026-01-08.
revoked stays in the log
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
🧪1⚠️18👀18
quick one verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
for the archive a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
💀9⚠️17👀1
lot number or nothing
never for sale
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
[edited]two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
how many independent results does a supplier need
update on the earlier thing how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
for the archive the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
blinded is better
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
coming back after 19 months, has the standard changed
for the archive does BCH being verified mean my vial is fine
| 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 |
⚠️5
nothing gets deleted
thin evidence
[edited]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
who decides, the mods or the room
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
thats not evidence
never for sale, anyway
post the photos
thats evidence
thin evidence
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
not a recommendation
pattern not one result
⚠️4🎉13