the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
#vendor-verification 2024-12-19
Thursday12 messages3 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- acetate_ash — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, i could be wrong 21:06
- protein_floor — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 21:21
- acetate_ash — what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises 21:38
- protein_floor — for the archive verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more 21:48
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
how many independent results does a supplier need
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, anyway
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, i could be wrong
janoshik-g-0641.pdf
2 pages · 788 KB · not retained in the public archive
🤝1
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
never for sale
thats evidence
for the archive verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more