verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
#vendor-verification 2026-01-20
Tuesday42 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- noct.titrate — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line 19:31
- zed_zeroes_in — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 19:37
- ten_of_ten — sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification 19:43
- blind_submit — for the archive does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything 21:10
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
🙏9❤️6💀7
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
| 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 |
sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
🙏6💀9👀2
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine, still working it out
❤️12
coming back to this i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
thin evidence
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
📈10
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, happy to be corrected
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 a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
not a recommendation
private_script_priwe refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results…
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
🧊1
blinded is better
pattern not one result
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
[edited]i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
thats not evidence
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
while im here a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, ill dig out the number
coming back after 22 months, has the standard changed
follow up blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
👍1
for the archive does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
🧊3✅16
revoked stays in the log
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
Inter-lab diff for lot G-0641: 99.2% vs 99.4%. Within expected range.
slightly off topic but what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
while im here the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
never for sale
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
lot number or nothing
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
both numbers go in, take that with a pinch of salt
janoshik-b-0329.pdf
2 pages · 118 KB · not retained in the public archive