why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
🎉6
#vendor-verification 2026-03-03
Tuesday58 messages13 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- verify_or_dont — how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing 20:15
- ema_vs_national — unrelated but we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, n of 1 obviously what does not count: the… 20:52
- fake_tracking — quick one somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log 21:08
- karl_fischer — verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently 23:03
log it either way
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
| 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 |
❤️16📈7✅17
nothing gets deleted
📉2🤝14
refresh on evidence
fridge-temps.csv
167 rows · not retained in the public archive
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
[edited]both numbers go in
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
revoked stays in the log
thats evidence
✅1❤️1🧊15
Reminder set. I will post here in 3 days.
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
❤️15
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
update from 8 months ago: WXT added evidence and the entry now reflects it
pattern not one result
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, thats just me
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
fridge-temps.csv
796 rows · not retained in the public archive
unrelated but we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, n of 1 obviously
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
🎉4💀8👍9
lot number or nothing
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
quick one somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
📉10🎉7🤝2
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
blinded is better
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, not advice obviously
how many independent results does a supplier need
ema_vs_nationalthe point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we…
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
thats not evidence
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
| 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 |
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
never for sale
📈3⚠️15
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
lot number or nothing
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
vial-a-2601-front.png
900 × 1200 · 919 KB · not retained in the public archive
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
coming back after 20 months, has the standard changed
who decides, the mods or the room
✅10🔥10💀4
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, from memory
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
👍12😂2
update on the earlier thing two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
thin evidence, i have it written down somewhere
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, from memory
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
😂9✅1🎉9
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
thin evidence
pattern not one result
thats not evidence
thin evidence
[edited]