refresh on evidence
😂12🤝2📉2
#vendor-verification 2026-06-20
Saturday72 messages15 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- halifax_hplc — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 13:00
- customs_owl — who decides, the mods or the room 13:18
- salt_bridge — is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable 15:43
- bram_begins — what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 19:10
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was 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 |
✅2
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
📈2✅9
does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
| 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 |
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
😂6💀3
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
who decides, the mods or the room
🙏17🎉4
right so somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
post the photos
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
📈1👍2
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
thats evidence
😂3
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
follow up the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
coming back after 3 months, has the standard changed
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
[edited]verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
🔥9
blinded is better
slightly off topic but update from 4 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
follow up is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
thin evidence
📈3
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
revoked stays in the log
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
[edited]lot number or nothing
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
🎉10
while im here the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
sorry to jump in the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
❤️1
thats not evidence, from memory
not a recommendation
ok so how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
🤝13😂13
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
log it either way
never for sale
nothing gets deleted
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
pattern not one result
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
how does a supplier get verification revoked
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, anyway
both numbers go in, ill dig out the number
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
post the photos
Batch lookup A-2418: 5 independent reports on file, earliest 2026-01-10.
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
log it either way
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
post the photos
residual_solventi have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient…
quick one nothing gets deleted
thats evidence
pattern not one result
📉7
revoked stays in the log
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
update on the earlier thing how many independent results does a supplier need
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
✅15🧪14🧊1
lot number or nothing
revoked stays in the log
🧪6
coming back to this i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
for the archive not a recommendation