a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
🧪9
#vendor-verification 2025-05-17
Saturday36 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- electrolyte_eli — i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count 19:49
- electrolyte_eli — verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently 20:09
- cold_pack_carla — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 20:34
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
ok so we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
nothing gets deleted
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
post the photos
does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from Medutest
log it either way
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
thats evidence
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
medutest-report-e-2205.pdf
3 pages · 665 KB · not retained in the public archive
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
👀1🙏7📈1
never for sale
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
thats not evidence
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
⚠️14🧊3👍2
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
🧪8⚠️12📈3
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
🔥17💀1
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
blinded is better
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
both numbers go in
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
unrelated but update from 7 months ago: QYB added evidence and the entry now reflects it, anyway
refresh on evidence