vialroom

#vendor-verification 2026-01-17

Saturday54 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
  • private_script_pri — if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, take that with a pinch of salt 11:40
  • lisbon_lot — how does a supplier get verification revoked 13:53
  • lisbon_lot — blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs 14:30
  • sharps_comedy — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 14:59
KF

update on the earlier thing the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now

a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited

9

a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record

PB

the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line

BS

verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently

KF

what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises

KF

unrelated but a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel

nothing gets deleted

blinded is better

thats not evidence

refresh on evidence

🧊6
PS

if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score, take that with a pinch of salt

7🔥7
PS

genuine question verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted

[edited]
SC

how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor

NN

nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes, for what its worth

revoked stays in the log

both numbers go in

LL

do blinded submissions carry more weight than open ones
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record

MM

two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers

the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division

the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not

LL

blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs

⚠️16👍13😂1
LL

sorry to jump in if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution

LL

why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored

❤️15
LL

verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more

what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves

SC

we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern

👍14💀14
CO

genuine question we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry

quick one update from 15 months ago: QST added evidence and the entry now reflects it

ok so somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log

CO

a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all

has anyone ever offered to pay for verification

VB

Reminder for nine_nine_one: dose day is today. Set 8 days ago.