i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
#vendor-verification 2026-02-21
Saturday31 messages8 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- zed_zeroes_in — somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log 16:14
- monoisotopic — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 16:51
- bea_reconstitutes — i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count 17:20
- bea_reconstitutes — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not 17:57
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
never for sale
pattern not one result
update on the earlier thing we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, i think
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
thats not evidence
💀5📈6
coming back after 8 months, has the standard changed
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
💀17
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
💀9🤝1👀10
thats evidence
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
✅14❤️8
Reminder set. I will post here in 9 days.
post the photos
🧊6👀5🙏7
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
both numbers go in
janoshik-f-1330.pdf
2 pages · 640 KB · not retained in the public archive
👀1📈1
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
🔥1👀4😂14
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes