#vendor-verification 2026-02-27

do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones

thin evidence

is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable

the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, i have it written down somewhere
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log

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

update from 6 months ago: TFC added evidence and the entry now reflects it

is there a version of the log i can read chronologically

we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern

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

log it either way

somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log

the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers

how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor

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

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

never for sale

a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel

the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division

a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all, i have it written down somewhere

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

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