a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
#vendor-verification 2024-09-29
Sunday16 messages4 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- customs_owl — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 18:40
- sharps_bin_sid — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, i think 18:42
- peak_split — is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation 20:55
- sharps_bin_sid — who decides, the mods or the room 22:43
update from 13 months ago: HJ added evidence and the entry now reflects it
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
📉3😂4👀9
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, i think
🧊8👀5
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
🤝1
both numbers go in
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
coming back to this verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
sorry to jump in does WXT being verified mean my vial is fine
pattern not one result
coming back after 19 months, has the standard changed
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
🤝6📈5
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
who decides, the mods or the room
| 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 |