refresh on evidence
#vendor-verification 2025-02-01
- nordic_price_nils — coming back after 19 months, has the standard changed 11:49
- private_script_pri — if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution 11:55
- private_script_pri — sorry to jump in does MKM being verified mean my vial is fine 14:52
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not, ask me again in a month
[edited]verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
unrelated but somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
coming back after 19 months, has the standard changed
| 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 |
sorry to jump in what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
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
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
revoked stays in the log
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
post the photos
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
never for sale
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
genuine question why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
sorry to jump in does MKM being verified mean my vial is fine
both numbers go in
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all