coming back after 16 months, has the standard changed
#vendor-verification 2026-04-09
Thursday15 messages4 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- vial_ledger — how does a supplier get verification revoked 18:01
- vial_ledger — genuine question if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 19:07
- acetate_ash — update from 11 months ago: CPC added evidence and the entry now reflects it 19:21
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
how does a supplier get verification revoked
🔥15🤝10✅1
blinded is better
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
slightly off topic but is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
genuine question if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
| 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 |
update from 11 months ago: CPC added evidence and the entry now reflects it
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
ok so nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, ymmv