what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
👍12
#vendor-verification 2025-05-14
Wednesday38 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- half_life_hal — is there a version of the log i can read chronologically 11:50
- monoisotopic — verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently 13:17
- belfast_bac — i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier 14:58
Reminder set. I will post here in 9 days.
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
🧊17👍8🎉14
blinded is better
update from 21 months ago: QST added evidence and the entry now reflects it
revoked stays in the log
✅16👍2
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
😂3
thats not evidence
⚠️1
lot number or nothing
❤️1
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
[edited]verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
⚠️18
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
❤️6🧪10
Assay note: QSC lot E-2205 reported at 99.4% of label content.
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
refresh on evidence
🎉1❤️9
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
how many independent results does a supplier need
quick one does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
does KP being verified mean my vial is fine
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
pattern not one result
[edited]🧪3👍6🎉6
two_four_ceilingif you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that…
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
🧪1🎉6👀10
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, for what its worth
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
log it either way
[edited]vial-c-4402-front.png
900 × 1200 · 111 KB · not retained in the public archive
never for sale
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs