lot number or nothing
#vendor-verification 2024-10-31
Thursday26 messages7 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- karl_fischer — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, n of 1 obviously 12:37
- VialBot — Channel stats, last 30 days: 129 messages from 60 members. 12:46
- blind_submit — does QSC being verified mean my vial is fine 12:55
- no_appetite_nia — do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones 14:20
- no_appetite_nia — what actually counts as evidence for a verification 15:40
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, n of 1 obviously
🧊8
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
*Janoshik not the other one
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
*Medutest not the other one
Channel stats, last 30 days: 129 messages from 60 members.
does QSC being verified mean my vial is fine
📈2
thats not evidence
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
not a recommendation
how does a supplier get verification revoked
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, take that with a pinch of salt
📈2
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
post the photos
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
🧊2⚠️2✅17
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
never for sale
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
[edited]what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all