Testing FakeYourDrank barcode scan now

I ran a barcode scan test on a recent FakeYourDrank card today since the scan reliability question has been coming up in several threads and most of the answers in the forum are generic rather than based on documented testing.

I used three apps: the standard one most people recommend, a second one that does full AAMVA field decoding, and a third that's primarily for QR codes but also handles PDF417. All three were tested on the same card under consistent lighting — indoor fluorescent, not direct sunlight.

Results: two out of three apps decoded successfully on the first scan attempt. The third app — the QR-focused one — failed twice before succeeding on the third attempt. This is consistent with what I'd expect from any PDF417 barcode that was printed at the lower end of the acceptable module width range. It's not a defective barcode; it's a barcode that requires a more capable reader.

Looking at the decoded field data: all the standard AAMVA fields were present. First name, last name, date of birth, address, eye color, height, weight — all populated and matching the front face. The expiration date and issue date fields were correctly calculated. The jurisdiction code matched the state. The one field that showed an unexpected value was a state-specific optional field that most apps don't display, and I'm not going to document the specific discrepancy here, but it wouldn't affect any practical use case.

My overall assessment of this FakeYourDrank barcode is that it passes for practical purposes on standard reader apps. The third app failure isn't something you'd encounter in a typical scan scenario because that app type isn't used for ID verification — I included it just to stress-test the barcode quality. On the two apps that matter for real-world use, the scan was clean and complete.