#vendor-verification 2026-02-04

a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, we shall see
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel

if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, thats one data point

the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, your mileage will differ
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log

if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score

the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, ymmv

nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes

verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry

two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers

a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited

i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier

how does a supplier get verification revoked

blinded is better

we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry

verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more

why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored

what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises

i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count

unrelated but what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine, from memory

verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted

coming back after 4 months, has the standard changed

never for sale

pattern not one result

two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log

the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now

a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both

the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line

nothing gets deleted

blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs

is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable

blinded is better