pattern not one result
#vendor-verification 2026-03-26
Thursday61 messages13 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ten_of_ten — coming back after 21 months, has the standard changed 19:23
- new_here_nat — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 20:09
- ghk_gia — the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, happy to be corrected the point of the standard is that it applies to… 20:48
- u100_pat — has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation 22:00
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
🙏2⚠️8
does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from Medutest
On this day 7 years ago this channel logged 97 messages.
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
coa-f-1330.pdf
1 page · 687 KB · not retained in the public archive
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
🤝12
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
weights-monthly.csv
444 rows · not retained in the public archive
who decides, the mods or the room
blinded is better
🧊6😂11🎉4
refresh on evidence
how does a supplier get verification revoked
revoked stays in the log
🙏1🎉1
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
coming back after 21 months, has the standard changed
💀1⚠️10🧊17
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
both numbers go in
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, not advice obviously
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
nothing gets deleted
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
lot number or nothing
how many independent results does a supplier need
👀8🙏15
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
coming back to this update from 11 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it, for what its worth
while im here what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
weights-monthly.csv
238 rows · not retained in the public archive
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
❤️15📉14
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted, for what its worth
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
update on the earlier thing if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, happy to be corrected
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
✅13📈1👍13
follow up we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
thats evidence
ok so the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
log it either way
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
refresh on evidence
not a recommendation
[edited]💀3❤️2📉5
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
*Medutest not the other one
thin evidence
lot number or nothing
thats not evidence
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
🔥2⚠️1🧊16
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
post the photos
🤝15
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
[edited]we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
never for sale