u/Own-Customer-4516 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
You just did clarify what I was asking in this response. You've done a 180 though, that's what's so confusing. You went from saying (yesterday): "I was informed today that Codesmith is still signing letters of reference and background checks on behalf of OS Labs to confirm f
u/michaelnovati replied · · edited ★ FEATURED
Sorry this is confusing, I'm intentionally not giving specific timeframes or specific details on events because it will reveal who is involved and Codesmith has at least two times tracked people down from Reddit with specific examples shared to me of that.
All of that is correct no?
1. Codesmith is arranging letters of reference from OSLabs (there is a specific person mentioned in arranging I'm not disclosing their name)
2. The example presented to me evidence yesterday was not about a reference that took place yesterday
3. I'm not giving details of what this example was because even the type of reference, time, location, people involved I think could DOX who it is.
4. As far as I'm aware OSLabs is still providing reference checks and as far as I'm aware, the person signing them is still Phil. Someone sent me a letter from a few years ago signed by Phil and this is not about that situation, but I would assume the latest letters are the same as the newest information I received indicates the process is the same.
Does that clarify anything?