sorry to jump in verification is revoked on a confirmed failure and the revocation stays in the log permanently
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
#vendor-verification 2026-06-18
Thursday42 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- VialBot — Testing queue: 6 submissions open, 42 awaiting dispatch. 21:59
- no_appetite_nia — what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine 22:16
- no_appetite_nia — a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both 22:26
the log is readable chronologically and that is deliberate. the trajectory matters more than the current line
a verified supplier can still ship you a bad vial. verification is about the record, not about your parcel
📉17
has anyone ever offered to pay for verification
if you want to help, buy a lot, test it, and post the report with the lot number. that is the whole contribution
blinded is better
🧪17😂1
both numbers go in
what happens to the log entry when a supplier improves
two labs a point or two apart on one lot is normal. both go in the log with both numbers, your mileage will differ
nothing gets deleted
transit-times.csv
106 rows · not retained in the public archive
Testing queue: 6 submissions open, 42 awaiting dispatch.
⚠️1🙏15
thin evidence
log it either way
🧊15🔥12
a referral link is disqualifying because it makes the reporter an interested party. that is all, we shall see
how many independent results does a supplier need
[edited]what does not count: the supplier certificate alone, a screenshot, a referral link, or a friend who says it was fine
🧪17🔥2
lot number or nothing
refresh on evidence
if the evidence is thin the entry says the evidence is thin. that is more useful than a score
a lot number mismatch between the vial and the certificate is a serious finding. post it with photos of both
💀6😂6🙏11
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted
the point of the standard is that it applies to suppliers we like as well as ones we do not
pattern not one result
| 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 |
a good result with bad sample handling gets logged with a note about the handling. context is part of the record
📉6📈2❤️2
nothing gets deleted from the log, including our own mistakes
thats evidence
the mods maintain the log. the room supplies the evidence and argues about it, which is the correct division
update from 1 months ago: KP added evidence and the entry now reflects it
who decides, the mods or the room
what counts: an independent report, on a lot you bought yourself, with the lot number, from a lab the room recognises
follow up thats not evidence
we have never revoked on a single result. we have revoked on a pattern
a supplier improving shows in the log as later entries, not as earlier entries being edited, i could be wrong
right so somebody once offered to fund the testing programme in exchange for an entry. the offer is in the log, ill dig out the number
does a supplier certificate on its own count for anything
is there a version of the log i can read chronologically
we refresh on new evidence, not on a clock. an old verification with no recent results says so on the entry
[edited]never for sale
i have watched this standard hold for three years including when it was inconvenient for a popular supplier
✅7💀17
verification has never been for sale and never will be. offers get posted publicly with the sender redacted