what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
#vendor-verification 2025-07-04
Friday48 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- otto_swirls — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 20:10
- night_pin — somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log 21:01
- blind_submit — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, anyway i have watched this standard hold for three… 22:47
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
never for sale
revoked stays in the log
| 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 |
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
thats not evidence
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
nothing gets deleted
👍9🧪10😂9
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
blinded is better
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
*Janoshik not the other one
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
| 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 |
not a recommendation
right so is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, your mileage will differ
pattern not one result
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
thin evidence
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
refresh on evidence
Testing queue: 4 submissions open, 46 awaiting dispatch.
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
lot number or nothing
coming back to this verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
does QYB being verified mean my vial is fine
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
📈12🔥2
ok so a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all, n of 1 obviously
post the photos
*Medutest not the other one
update from 26 months ago: SWB added evidence and the entry now reflects it
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
[edited]thats evidence
ok so verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently, someone check my working
21:46tenpence pinned a message
sorry to jump in nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
[edited]both numbers go in
both numbers go in
🙏8❤️15📈5
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, anyway
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
🔥2🎉9👀2
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, anyway
log it either way
💀8