does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
#vendor-verification 2026-06-17
Wednesday34 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- void_volume — verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted 22:21
- VialBot — Verification log updated: SGN — evidence added, status unchanged. 22:40
- eight_mm — a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 22:47
- void_volume — right so blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs 23:11
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, ymmv
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
🔥7💀4
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
🤝4
not a recommendation
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
revoked stays in the log
unrelated but is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
Verification log updated: SGN — evidence added, status unchanged.
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
lot-log.csv
547 rows · not retained in the public archive
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
for the archive coming back after 5 months, has the standard changed
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
sorry to jump in nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, someone check my working
refresh on evidence
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
thats evidence
| 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 |
right so blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
🤝1💀14📉16
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
👍4📈1
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
thin evidence
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, take that with a pinch of salt
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
blinded is better
post the photos
thats not evidence
update from 9 months ago: ERP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
⚠️1❤️2
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine