verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, n of 1 obviously
#vendor-verification 2026-03-22
Sunday58 messages13 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
while im here blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
pattern not one result
📉13😂1
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
not a recommendation
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
revoked stays in the log
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
thats not evidence
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
log it either way
who decides, the mods or the room
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
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
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
⚠️13
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
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
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
🧊1
blinded is better
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
right so do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
nothing gets deleted, someone check my working
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
update from 5 months ago: QST added evidence and the entry now reflects it
how does a supplier get verification revoked
[edited]post the photos
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
both numbers go in
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
❤️4🧪3
thin evidence
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
Reminder set. I will post here in 2 days.
✅11📉1
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
[edited]both numbers go in
[edited]does BCH being verified mean my vial is fine
blinded is better
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
never for sale
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
thats not evidence
thats evidence
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
refresh on evidence
update from 19 months ago: ERP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
[edited]post the photos
lot number or nothing