post the photos
#vendor-verification 2026-06-21
Sunday42 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- mg_per_ml — a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 21:06
- mg_per_ml — what actually counts as evidence for a verification 21:10
- slow.taper — two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log 21:33
- slow.taper — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 21:55
update on the earlier thing if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
slightly off topic but we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
[edited]never for sale
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
not a recommendation
😂6✅11
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
📉6📈1🎉15
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
🧪1👀2🎉6
thats evidence
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
pattern not one result
📉14💀14👀8
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, thats one data point
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
log it either way
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
😂2⚠️2🤝10
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
coming back to this the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
both numbers go in
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
✅16
how many independent results does a supplier need
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more, ask me again in a month
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from PeptideMeter
refresh on evidence
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
update from 16 months ago: GGPeps added evidence and the entry now reflects it, thats one data point
quick one a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
lot number or nothing
nothing gets deleted
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
follow up thin evidence
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, for what its worth