update on the earlier thing if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
#vendor-verification 2026-06-30
Tuesday42 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- no_appetite_nia — nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes 21:18
- no_appetite_nia — blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs 22:07
- comment_fatigue — is there a version of the log i can read chronologically 22:12
- VialBot — Verification log updated: WWB — evidence added, status unchanged. 22:19
- wren_weighs_in — update from 1 months ago: QYB added evidence and the entry now reflects it blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we… 23:04
thats evidence
📉11😂1🧪1
*that should say weekly
coming back to this a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
refresh on evidence
genuine question verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
⚠️15👍7💀2
revoked stays in the log
never for sale
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
lot number or nothing
🎉2🙏15
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
⚠️1
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
both numbers go in
⚠️7❤️3
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
thats not evidence
💀9⚠️5👀13
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
🎉6
coming back after 19 months, has the standard changed
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
🤝6👀2
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
Verification log updated: WWB — evidence added, status unchanged.
👀12
update on the earlier thing what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
nothing gets deleted, we shall see
thin evidence
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
no_appetite_niablinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we…
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
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
update from 1 months ago: QYB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
sorry to jump in blinded is better
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not