blinded is better
#vendor-verification 2025-06-12
Thursday36 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- non_scale_win — genuine question does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything 20:13
- hair_month_four — a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel 20:16
- hair_month_four — how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor 20:37
- identity_shift — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 20:56
- ferritin_fay — we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry 21:55
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
🤝1
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, i think
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
nothing gets deleted
Reminder for ferritin_fay: dose day is today. Set 7 days ago.
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
genuine question who decides, the mods or the room
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
genuine question does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
🧊4
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
👀7❤️13
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
[edited]if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
update from 18 months ago: QSC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
👀18👍11✅4
follow up why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
refresh on evidence
pattern not one result
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
| 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 |
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
sorry to jump in what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
coming back to this the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
does SGN being verified mean my vial is fine
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
| 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 |
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all