update from 10 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
#vendor-verification 2026-06-27
Saturday20 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- ema_vs_national — update from 10 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it 01:18
- gradient_greg — slightly off topic but the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, your mileage will differ 01:33
- gradient_greg — how does a supplier get verification revoked 01:44
nothing gets deleted
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
never for sale
lot number or nothing
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
slightly off topic but the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division, your mileage will differ
how does a supplier get verification revoked
transit-times.csv
783 rows · not retained in the public archive
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
refresh on evidence
post the photos
pattern not one result
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, i have it written down somewhere
log it either way
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
thin evidence
sorry to jump in has anyone ever offered to pay for verification