Talk:VendorInvestigate
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article VendorInvestigate. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
The answering tableResolved
The five-row table showing which question each kind of evidence answers is worth linking from Third-party testing as well — it is the clearest statement of the division of labour anywhere on the wiki. — VerifyVesna (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Linked both ways, and the row order is now identical in both places so a cross-reference to "the third row" resolves. ✓ Done — CrossRefCleve (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Forgery limitationDone
"Documentary review can raise the cost of forgery; it cannot eliminate it" is the correct framing and avoids both complacency and alarmism. — ForgeryFinder (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, and it points readers at the only real remedy, which is confirmation with the issuing laboratory. ✓ Done — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Registration checks and jurisdiction
Public company registers differ enormously in what they disclose between jurisdictions, which limits what a registration check can establish. Worth a sentence? — ImportRecordIna (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Worth a sentence, not a paragraph. The general point that a check is only as good as the register behind it covers most of it. — CustomsClarke (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)