what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
lot-log.csv
506 rows · not retained in the public archive
#vendor-verification 2026-05-05
Tuesday39 messages10 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- month_six_me — right so is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation 22:53
- quiet.hours — follow up if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score 23:22
- quiet.hours — a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 23:35
- relabel_watch — how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor 23:37
coming back to this if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
both numbers go in
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
i have a result but i did not buy the lot myself, does that count
somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
does a good result from Janoshik outweigh a bad one from VendorInvestigate
who decides, the mods or the room
*VendorInvestigate not the other one
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
genuine question update from 7 months ago: FGP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
lot number or nothing
📉12❤️5
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
thats evidence
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
coming back after 20 months, has the standard changed
Verification log updated: QST — evidence added, status unchanged.
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
never for sale
right so a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
📈5
follow up if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
🙏9🤝10😂6
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
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
❤️17🙏3
Archive lookup: quiet.hours first appears in this channel on 2025-12-12.
how do you handle a result that is good but the sample handling was poor
📈12❤️15
follow up how does a supplier get verification revoked
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
right so has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
refresh on evidence