New vendor application — April 2026 verification cycle

james_edin said:

Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes.

Coming at james_edin’s question from a different direction. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Worth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

kate.chem said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

kate.chem said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.