slightly off topic but the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
#vendor-verification 2025-01-07
Tuesday13 messages4 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- blind_submit — slightly off topic but the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 19:53
- blind_submit — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 19:58
- VialBot — Purity check: no report on file for lot H-2814. Nothing logged either way. 20:09
- blind_submit — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 20:15
- blind_submit — does Homopeptide being verified mean my vial is fine the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line 20:18
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
👍2
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
Purity check: no report on file for lot H-2814. Nothing logged either way.
📉2
quick one has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers, i think
does Homopeptide being verified mean my vial is fine
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier