does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from Medutest
#vendor-verification 2026-03-21
- nordic_price_nils — has anyone ever offered to pay for verification 17:40
- chain_of_custody — a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel 18:12
- chain_of_custody — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 18:17
- nordic_price_nils — a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all 18:18
- nordic_price_nils — what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, anyway 18:44
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
not a recommendation
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
blinded submissions carry more weight because they remove a variable, not because we distrust the labs
log it either way
nothing gets deleted
both numbers go in
blinded is better
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
pattern not one result
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
two labs disagree on the same lot, which one goes in the log
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises, anyway
thats not evidence
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
coming back after 10 months, has the standard changed