Why we hide unevidenced fraud accusations and log the hiding

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

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.

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

That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.

Narrowing post #35, because the general version has more than one answer.

Anonymous accusations get hidden under the guidelines and the hiding is logged. That is not protection of suppliers; it is protection of the record.

The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.

Answering the question post #42 raises rather than the one it answers.

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.

Answering the question post #60 raises rather than the one it answers.

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.

This follows post #67 rather than contradicting it.

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.

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