the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
#vendor-verification 2025-10-31
Friday32 messages6 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- karl_fischer — right so i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 20:25
- related_subs — verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an… 20:31
- hair_month_four — somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log 21:14
both numbers go in
🧪3🤝3⚠️1
right so i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
📉15🎉1🧊2
post the photos
revoked stays in the log
update from 13 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
| 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 |
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
never for sale
while im here what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
🧊1
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
slightly off topic but how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
refresh on evidence
update on the earlier thing a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
👀11📉4
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, ymmv
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
| 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
how does a supplier get verification revoked
thats not evidence
thats evidence
blinded is better
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
coming back after 2 months, has the standard changed
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
not a recommendation
[edited]the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more