i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
📈9🤝1🔥3
#vendor-verification 2025-01-10
Friday33 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ten_of_ten — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 21:27
- verify_or_dont — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 22:30
- verify_or_dont — both numbers go in what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 22:38
- invoice_mismatch — what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves 22:41
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, take that with a pinch of salt
⚠️1🔥1
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
😂6
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
coming back to this verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
never for sale
right so two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, not advice obviously
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, anyway
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
thin evidence
[edited]✅11👍1
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
not a recommendation
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, thats one data point
ok so nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, take that with a pinch of salt
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, happy to be corrected
log it either way
⚠️10🧪6
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, ymmv
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
🤝12📉16
both numbers go in
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
👍1💀9
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel, take that with a pinch of salt
[edited]🧊3
post the photos
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
😂11🙏1
ok so a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
🤝1❤️5
thats not evidence
🧊1
how many independent results does a supplier need
refresh on evidence