why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
#vendor-verification 2024-05-22
Wednesday14 messages5 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- area_percent — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division i have watched this standard hold for three years… 09:16
- VialBot — Assay note: ERP lot B-0114 reported at 98.1% of label content. 09:19
- lot_number_lou — does WWB being verified mean my vial is fine 11:16
- area_percent — quick one how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing 11:18
- lot_number_lou — has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation update from 13 months ago: WWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it 11:31
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs, we shall see
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
Assay note: ERP lot B-0114 reported at 98.1% of label content.
follow up nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, anyway
how does a supplier get verification revoked
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
does WWB being verified mean my vial is fine
🧊1🤝1✅6
quick one how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
💀9🤝7
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
update from 13 months ago: WWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not