How are you gonna check the organs? You can't see HIV on the organs by eye. Checking means re-testing, so might as well get rid of outsourcing.

> How are you gonna check the organs?

You don’t check the organs. You check the process by intermingling known HIV+ samples and check if they are being detected.

> Checking means re-testing, so might as well get rid of outsourcing.

Thing is you need to do QA on the testing system no matter what. Doesn’t matter if it is performed by contractors, in house staff or little grey aliens. If you are not doing QA you won’t know if the testing is done correctly or not.

In-house workers can phone it in as well.

At some point, your recursive watchers of watchers watching watchers has to have a base case of "we trust this entity" (or maybe, "you, the public, trust this entity").

Outsourcing only matters for this if it provides a break in the chain of responsibility. That is, if the person selecting the outsource provider can (successfully) say "hey, not my fault" by pointing to... some entity that whoever they answer to doesn't already trust.

> It's inadequate checks

I agree provided that "checks" isn't just the narrow sense of "verification upon receipt of the product", but also the supporting framework of "violators will get punished."