How the vendor documentation pages are maintained, and by whom — what changed since

Post #15 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Where you have no independent result, a documentation report is still worth filing: what the certificate contained, what it omitted, and how fast a request was answered.

A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.

Worth separating vendor documentation pages as a question about the compound from vendor documentation pages as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.

Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.

Post #29 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Vendor documentation pages sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.

Post #55 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Practical answer on vendor documentation pages, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.

Vendor documentation pages came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.

Post #77 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

The bit of vendor documentation pages that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.

Post #96 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

Speaking only to vendor documentation pages as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.