what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
#vendor-verification 2025-08-30
Saturday43 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- first_and_last_four — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, i have it written down somewhere 19:15
- dana_titrates — has anyone ever offered to pay for verification 19:57
- vial_ledger — does QST being verified mean my vial is fine 20:38
- non_scale_win — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 21:14
- travel_cooler — do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones 21:33
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, i have it written down somewhere
⚠️5
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
both numbers go in
thats evidence
never for sale
👍2
ok so nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
🙏5
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
sorry to jump in verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, we shall see
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
follow up verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
does QST being verified mean my vial is fine
refresh on evidence
🤝1❤️9
coming back to this does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
log it either way
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
blinded is better
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
❤️1🧪5
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
💀3📉3
ok so how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
[edited]👍1
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
thats not evidence
post the photos
who decides, the mods or the room
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
not a recommendation