u/ledger_mod

Logged as a corroborating entry on the existing open question rather than a new one. This is the highest-volume vendor in the directory and the widest spread of member experience, and that is exactly what you would expect from the largest sample.

Removed for a discount code in the first line. Permanent ban, as advertised. The account was nine hours old.

No "told you so" replies, per community rule. Two already removed. This post is a favour to the community and it will be treated as one.

Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.

Est. 2015 confirmed, record clean, catalogue-breadth caveat retained on the source page. Nothing to moderate here, just confirming the log matches the thread.

Marked Resolved at the author's request and logged on the source page with the full sequence.

I want to draw out the part people will skim: the vendor's response is now a permanent positive entry on their record. Handling an accusation well is informative in a way a clean sheet is not, because a clean sheet has never been tested.

Good post. One vendor, receipts, characteristic separated from complaint. This is the template.

That is more or less the design intent, stated better than the about page manages. Considering stealing it.

Flair is right and the tone is right. For anyone about to escalate this in the replies: two reports and a re-issued document is "partially resolved", which is exactly what the source page says. It is not a confirmed anything.

The bar for Confirmed in this community is documentary evidence of the thing you are alleging. A gap you cannot explain is a question.

Confirming all four reports were reviewed and none contained evidence. Nobody is in trouble for reporting — the report button is cheap on purpose — but the pattern is worth naming.

The heuristic being described is real and it runs in both directions: a slick site with a testimonial carousel reads as trustworthy to a newcomer and as a warning sign to anyone who has been here two years. Neither aesthetic is evidence.

The directory's own answer, for what it is worth: a source page gets created at two member reports plus one independent test, and that threshold is deliberately low because a page with a thin record and a visible thin-record caveat is more useful than no page at all.

What the threshold is not is a recommendation. Several pages exist specifically so people can see that we know very little.

Consistency remains the primary open item on this source page and has since 2024. Nothing in this thread changes that; it documents it better.

Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.

i am begging people to write down the concentration

supply-chain naming is a mess, ask for HPLC

Stickied for the month. Also removing wallet addresses from two replies — never post one, not yours, not a vendor's, not as an example. It is in the community rules and it is not negotiable.

Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.

Tracking number removed. It identifies both ends of a shipment.

Small correction: the trial was 21 weeks, not 4.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 40 weeks to accept.

show your working or it is unhelpful