how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
#vendor-verification 2025-03-06
Thursday38 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- fridge_thermo — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier verification has never been for sale and never will be.… 22:37
- blind_submit — a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 22:47
- blind_submit — coming back to this update from 19 months ago: QST added evidence and the entry now reflects it 23:19
- month_six_me — we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, ill dig out the number 23:22
for the archive a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
thats evidence
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
while im here verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
coming back to this has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
🎉1🤝1👀18
never for sale
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
post the photos
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
genuine question is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
blinded is better
[edited]a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
who decides, the mods or the room
not a recommendation
[edited]💀6
revoked stays in the log
🧪16🧊9📉2
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
genuine question coming back after 9 months, has the standard changed
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
coming back to this update from 19 months ago: QST added evidence and the entry now reflects it
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
pattern not one result
🤝10
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry, ill dig out the number
😂15
lot number or nothing
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
📉1
ok so nothing gets deleted
follow up we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
[edited]👍4
refresh on evidence
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
thin evidence, we shall see