thats not evidence
#vendor-verification 2024-07-07
Sunday33 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- vial_ledger — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, we shall see 22:36
- void_volume — what actually counts as evidence for a verification what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 22:40
- void_volume — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 22:51
- split_dose_sam — verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more, ill dig out the number 23:42
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, we shall see
🤝10🎉2👍17
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
🧪15🤝12⚠️7
lot number or nothing
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
lot-log.csv
250 rows · not retained in the public archive
pattern not one result
unrelated but update from 18 months ago: TFC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
vial-g-0641-front.png
900 × 1200 · 822 KB · not retained in the public archive
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
how many independent results does a supplier need
does a good result from PeptideMeter outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
[edited]do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
log it either way
😂5⚠️1
genuine question how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
vial-a-2418-front.png
900 × 1200 · 108 KB · not retained in the public archive
refresh on evidence
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
not a recommendation
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
Reminder for ten_of_ten: dose day is today. Set 8 days ago.
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, ill dig out the number
🤝15🙏1
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division