a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
📈1
#vendor-verification 2026-06-24
Wednesday49 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- blind_submit — a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 21:04
- underfill_uma — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line 21:16
- cold_chain_cmdr — verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently 22:21
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
❤️15⚠️1
post the photos
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
sorry to jump in 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
| 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 |
both numbers go in
sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
ok so 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
blinded is better
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
pattern not one result
🧪15🙏2🤝3
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
[edited]🔥2
follow up we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern, ill dig out the number
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
never for sale
✅1
ok so what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
*Janoshik not the other one
Reminder set. I will post here in 9 days.
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers, thats one data point
lot number or nothing, ill dig out the number
coming back after 23 months, has the standard changed
update from 18 months ago: WWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
slightly off topic but verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
revoked stays in the log
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
😂1🧪18❤️18
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
log it either way
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
🧪1👍5
nothing gets deleted
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
📉4📈5
thats not evidence
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
refresh on evidence
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
lot number or nothing
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
thats evidence
👍1🙏1
not a recommendation
not a recommendation
⚠️6📈1
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
not a recommendation
[edited]