Follow-up: Why we hide unevidenced fraud accusations and log the hiding

The question in the title: Why we hide unevidenced fraud accusations and log the hiding I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.

Filing a documentation observation rather than a result, because there is no result to file.

The certificate arrived with the consignment. It carries a purity figure and a method name and stops there. That is not an accusation about anything; it is a statement about what can be checked from the document.

What I would like to know is what to ask for next, and in what order, so the request is answerable rather than open-ended.

Picking up the opening post: that is the part I would want checked first.

The guidelines draw that line for a practical reason as much as a fair one: reports accumulate into something useful and allegations do not.

Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.

Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Nothing here should be read as an accusation against a named company, and the guidelines exist so that reports remain reports.

The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.

Where somebody posts a concern, ask what would resolve it before arguing about it. Half of these threads end with a document nobody had asked for.

Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.

A stock listing that never changes and a lead time that never varies are both worth noticing. Real operations have variation in them.

Prices well below the rest of the market are a fact rather than a finding. They are worth noting and they do not establish anything on their own.

I read post #3 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a resolved case written up with the resolution, because the unresolved ones are all anyone remembers.

Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.

That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.

Where somebody posts a concern, ask what would resolve it before arguing about it. Half of these threads end with a document nobody had asked for.

Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.

The strongest single signal available cheaply is what happens when you ask a technical question. A quantitative answer inside a working day is difficult to fake at scale.

Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.

Prices well below the rest of the market are a fact rather than a finding. They are worth noting and they do not establish anything on their own.

Post #12 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Nothing here should be read as an accusation against a named company, and the guidelines exist so that reports remain reports.

If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.

Coming back to post #10, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

The guidelines draw that line for a practical reason as much as a fair one: reports accumulate into something useful and allegations do not.

The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.