lot number or nothing
🧊7💀15
#vendor-verification 2025-10-17
Friday46 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- low_and_slow — two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers 21:15
- first_month_fi — while im here a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record blinded submissions carry more weight… 22:16
- sulphur_burp — update from 14 months ago: BCH added evidence and the entry now reflects it 22:45
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
Reminder set. I will post here in 9 days.
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
👍8🎉10
never for sale
blinded is better
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
transit-times.csv
337 rows · not retained in the public archive
📈15📉12👍3
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
nothing gets deleted
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
thin evidence
| 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 |
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
[edited]how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
| 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 |
post the photos
😂6
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
📉13😂5👀15
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
[edited]right so somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
ok so a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
both numbers go in
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
while im here a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
| 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 |
log it either way
[edited]refresh on evidence
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
not a recommendation
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
🎉15📈1💀5
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
update from 14 months ago: BCH added evidence and the entry now reflects it
😂1❤️9✅9
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
coa-b-0114.pdf
1 page · 930 KB · not retained in the public archive
thats evidence
🧊2✅10
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
thats not evidence, i think