the lot number on the certificate does not match my vial, what now
#vendor-verification 2026-06-10
Wednesday40 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- gorse_gains — verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more 22:35
- drawup_dee — we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern 22:58
- relabel_watch — a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited 23:02
- relabel_watch — the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line 23:21
- lot_number_lou — a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record 23:46
how many independent results does a supplier need
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
[edited]log it either way
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
follow up a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all
while im here is the verification log the same thing as a recommendation
verification is not a recommendation. it means the evidence standard has been met, nothing more
👀6🙏14⚠️1
sorry to jump in somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log
Inter-lab diff for lot E-2205: 97.4% vs 99.2%. Within expected range.
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
[edited]right so does WWB being verified mean my vial is fine
does a good result from VendorInvestigate outweigh a bad one from Janoshik
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers
update from 24 months ago: GGPeps added evidence and the entry now reflects it, from memory
quick one the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
has verification ever been reinstated after a revocation
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
👀8🙏10
post the photos
cold_start_cyfollow up a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested…
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited
🎉15✅14⚠️15
refresh on evidence
coming back after 6 months, has the standard changed
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
💀6🙏1
never for sale
[edited]not a recommendation
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
🧊1❤️7
revoked stays in the log
⚠️1👀5🙏1
both numbers go in
thats evidence
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution, anyway
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
⚠️1😂1
unrelated but is a screenshot of a report ever acceptable
why is a referral link disqualifying rather than just ignored
*Medutest not the other one
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
😂12🔥11
thats not evidence