two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
#vendor-verification 2025-12-11
Thursday52 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- bengaluru_bac — a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel 14:55
- bengaluru_bac — two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log 16:09
- bengaluru_bac — why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct… 19:04
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
pattern not one result
⚠️6
refresh on evidence
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
blinded is better
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
janoshik-kp-0925.pdf
2 pages · 222 KB · not retained in the public archive
📈1🧪18✅16
revoked stays in the log
both numbers go in
who decides, the mods or the room
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
nothing gets deleted
how does a supplier get verification revoked
never for sale
thats evidence
📉1💀10
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
🔥7⚠️2
lot number or nothing
🎉3👍2🤝10
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
🔥4🤝14
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
Inter-lab diff for lot F-1330: 98.6% vs 96.8%. Within expected range.
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
🔥9🧊1
thin evidence
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
🤝5💀12
update from 14 months ago: SGN added evidence and the entry now reflects it
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 |
not a recommendation
thats not evidence
👀1✅3🎉1
slightly off topic but is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
❤️3👍14
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
fridge-temps.csv
807 rows · not retained in the public archive
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
coming back after 6 months, has the standard changed
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
right so blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
update on the earlier thing a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
⚠️13
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
🙏15
18:22tenpence pinned a message
log it either way
🧪3🎉1💀1
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
❤️16
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
coming back to this what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
both numbers go in
how many independent results does a supplier need
🙏6