how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
#vendor-verification 2025-06-10
Tuesday35 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
nothing gets deleted
[edited]post the photos
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, n of 1 obviously
thats evidence
🔥1🧪4
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from Medutest
📈18✅6🤝9
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
[edited]📉13
not a recommendation
lot number or nothing
follow up is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
🤝1📉2👀16
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
revoked stays in the log
💀10
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, from memory
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
thin evidence
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier, ask me again in a month
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers, i could be wrong
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
blinded is better
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
🔥8
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, thats just me
thats not evidence
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
never for sale
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more, ymmv
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs