what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
| 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 |
what actually counts as evidence for a verification
verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
unrelated but verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
how many independent results does a supplier need
the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
thats not evidence
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both, still working it out
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
genuine question a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
never for sale
update from 23 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
thats evidence
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
On this day 3 years ago this channel logged 81 messages.
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
log it either way
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line, anyway
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
revoked stays in the log
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
not a recommendation
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
does FGP being verified mean my vial is fine
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
blinded is better
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record, happy to be corrected
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
thin evidence
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
lot number or nothing
revoked stays in the log, anyway
both numbers go in
unrelated but why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
how long does a verification stay current before it needs refreshing
nothing gets deleted, thats one data point
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
pattern not one result
how does a supplier get verification revoked
post the photos
| 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 |
update on the earlier thing 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
refresh on evidence
who decides, the mods or the room
revoked stays in the log
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
thats not evidence
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
post the photos, i could be wrong
update from 22 months ago: GL Biochem added evidence and the entry now reflects it
post the photos
coming back after 11 months, has the standard changed
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
not a recommendation
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
both numbers go in