a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
#vendor-verification 2025-02-24
Monday41 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- lot_number_lou — slightly off topic but somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, ymmv 02:30
- stack_sceptic — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 04:35
- stack_sceptic — the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now 06:42
- snac_and_water — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 07:08
slightly off topic but somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, ymmv
| 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 |
never for sale
log it either way
🧊13
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
*Medutest not the other one
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
💀7😂1
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, from memory
[edited]a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
Inter-lab diff for lot G-0641: 99% vs 96.8%. Within expected range.
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
| 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 |
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, i have it written down somewhere
quick one do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
for the archive if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
refresh on evidence
follow up what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
non_scale_wintwo labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
🙏6🧪11
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
not a recommendation
thats not evidence
[edited]post the photos
coming back to this two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
🤝2🙏6👍1
nothing gets deleted
thin evidence
update from 24 months ago: JEEP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
while im here blinded is better
thats evidence
lot number or nothing
both numbers go in