how does a supplier get verification revoked
📈3✅1
#vendor-verification 2025-09-21
Sunday37 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- calgary_cold — is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers 17:18
- karl_fischer — has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation 17:54
- calgary_cold — the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now 18:42
- calgary_cold — how many independent results does a supplier need 19:11
- blank_run — how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 20:17
lot number or nothing
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
transit-times.csv
275 rows · not retained in the public archive
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
update from 14 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
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
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
post the photos
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
log it either way
thats evidence
thin evidence
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
ok so what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, ymmv
update on the earlier thing verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
🤝1🧊1🙏6
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
refresh on evidence
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
how many independent results does a supplier need
👀16
right so what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
sorry to jump in what actually counts as evidence for a verification
🤝3
quick one a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
| 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 |
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
blinded is better
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, for what its worth