verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
#vendor-verification 2025-11-01
Saturday54 messages14 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- see_a_clinician — the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division 15:25
- see_a_clinician — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record a lot number mismatch between the vial and the… 17:14
- vik_verifies — does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate 18:51
- abdo_two_inch — update from 8 months ago: QYB added evidence and the entry now reflects it, from memory 19:32
- relabel_watch — what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves 21:08
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, thats one data point
coming back to this 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
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
vial-kp-0925-front.png
900 × 1200 · 153 KB · not retained in the public archive
while im here the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
unrelated but blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
while im here a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
right so do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, i could be wrong
lot number or nothing
Reminder set. I will post here in 2 days.
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
never for sale
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
thats evidence
ok so not a recommendation
🎉6👍15
log it either way
does a good result from Medutest outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
| 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 |
pattern not one result
both numbers go in
coming back to this has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
update from 8 months ago: QYB added evidence and the entry now reflects it, from memory
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
unrelated but revoked stays in the log
✅2
thats not evidence
refresh on evidence
thin evidence
❤️6
for the archive why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
blinded is better
nothing gets deleted
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
🧊3
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
pattern not one result, your mileage will differ