Summary
- The problem
- When experimental data lives in free-text pages and disconnected files, comparing runs means reconciling names, units and missing context. Moving a method into controlled use adds another round of transcription.
- Seal’s approach
- Define each protocol’s fields, calculations and required inputs. Connect experiments, samples, materials and results in one data model. Your team and neil can compare and reuse that data, with versioning, review and approvals for controlled GxP work.
- Evidence
- MiAlgae, running ELN, quality and electronic batch records from lab to commercial scale: 75% less documentation time.
- Where to start
- One protocol and a question worth answering: a difficult comparison, a frequently repeated assay or a method approaching transfer. Book a demo.
Compare experiments on a shared data model.
Define a schema for each protocol: required fields, data types, units and calculations. A shared ontology defines the record types and relationships between experiments, samples, material lots, equipment and results. Each run captures its values within that structure, alongside observations and attachments.
Your team and neil can compare runs, trace results to their sources and reuse that structure in controlled GxP workflows with versioning, review and approval. Below, neil compares three runs and identifies a changed reagent lot for investigation.
The time stayed the same. The lot didn’t.
EXP-042 and EXP-043 both ran for 30 minutes. The reagent lot changed from RG-017 to RG-018. That gives us a comparison to investigate—not a cause we can claim.
See how the comparison is prepared.
3 minTurn the finding into the next experiment.
Keep the question, supporting runs and proposed work together. Your team decides what to test next.
Design a comparison that separates the lot from the incubation time.
Compare both lots at both times. Hold the other conditions consistent.
One question. Four conditions.
PR-014 / proposed follow-up
| Reagent lot | 20 min | 30 min |
|---|---|---|
| RG-017 | Planned, not run | Planned, not run |
| RG-018 | Planned, not run | Planned, not run |
Configure the protocol once. Keep each run distinct.
Describe the method and neil proposes a configuration. Review the steps, required inputs and calculations in Seal, then reuse the structure without losing the observations that make each run different.
Try the preparation calculation
Turn this into a reusable preparation: 10 mL at 2 mg/mL, from a 10 mg/mL stock. Keep the reagent lot with the run.
Here’s the preparation draft. Change the target to try the calculation.
from the stock
10 mg/mLfinal volume
Dilute to 2 mg/mLCalculation and record details
Stock volume = target concentration × final volume ÷ stock concentration.
2 × 10 ÷ 10 = 2 mL. Make up to a final volume of 10 mL with the method’s specified diluent.
Each run links the reagent lot and protocol version. The method defines incubation conditions and the original instrument file to retain.
This example recalculates locally; it does not create a protocol. Review the method, units and missing-input behaviour before using a configured preparation.
The protocol.
Steps, units and calculations belong to the protocol.
The run.
Entered values, observations and variations belong to the experiment.
The history.
A later revision does not rewrite earlier runs.
A result you can trace back to the bench.
Open the protocol, reagent lot and recorded conditions from the experiment. Follow the relationships behind a comparison instead of rebuilding its context from exports.
Sample SAM-043 and the recorded source-file reference stay with this run.
Work with the systems your lab already uses.
Start with the records you have. Scope connections to existing documents, laboratory systems and instrument exports; keep their source context with the work.
Controlled documents
Reference selected Vault document versions.
Existing knowledge
Connect procedures and supporting files.
Instrument evidence
Capture supported local exports with Seal IoT.
Carry the development evidence into transfer.
Carry development evidence into a proposed QC method or manufacturing procedure. The receiving team reviews the method, transfer work and training before controlled use.
PR-014 / v03
The experiments retain the version they used.
PR-014 / v04
- Required inputs and calculations
- Method qualification and transfer evidence
- Training and review responsibilities
Awaiting assessment and approval.
Change the configuration under review.
Continuous validation connects a configuration change to the requirements, checks and approval behind it. Earlier experiments keep their original values and calculation version.
A calculation changes.
Review the formula before and after, its units, rounding and affected protocols.
Explore continuous validation- Assess the impactUpdate the affected requirements and configuration specification.
- Verify the behaviourCheck normal inputs, boundaries and missing values. Retain results and exceptions.
- Review the releaseYour team reviews the evidence and authorises the new version.
The capabilities behind the daily work.
How the notebook handles the practical details, from sample labels to calculations, witnessing and reporting.
Design the experiment
Structured protocols
Define reusable steps, required parameters, units and calculations. Retain observations and explicit research variations alongside the structure.
A protocol that can be compared
- Required
- Sample, lot, incubation time
- Result
- Relative signal, unitless
- Variation
- Record the reason
- EXP-041—20-minute reference run
- EXP-042—30-minute research variation
Each run retains its protocol version and recorded conditions.
Inspect the example screen in a new tabIntegrated calculations
Define calculations with explicit inputs, units and rounding. Verify normal, boundary and missing-input behaviour when the formula changes.
A dilution with traceable inputs
- Stock
- 10 mg/mL
- Target
- 2 mg/mL
- Final volume
- 5 mL
- Calculated stock volume—2 × 5 ÷ 10 = 1 mL
- Verification—Missing or zero stock concentration must not produce a valid result
Sample calculation only. The method defines preparation instructions and tolerances.
Inspect the example screen in a new tabCustom scripts
Extend calculations, data processing and connections with scoped scripts. Specify inputs, outputs, permissions and failure behaviour.
A parser change under review
- Input
- Reader export
- Output
- Named result and unit
- Failure
- Keep unreadable values unresolved
- Source file—Original bytes remain available
- Verification—Representative files and failure cases
Retain the script version behind extracted values and assess downstream impact.
neil for protocol improvement
Turn findings into a proposed protocol change. Review the scientific rationale, risks and verification before adopting the new version.
Turn a question into a test
- Question
- Could lot differences explain the signal?
- Plan
- Compare conditions deliberately
- Status
- Scientist review needed
- Supporting experiments—Conditions, source files and limitations
- Proposed protocol—Defined comparison and required observations
neil can help prepare the proposal. The team decides whether and how to run it.
Run it with context
Sample and reagent linking
Connect samples, aliquots and specific reagent lots to the experiment. Follow those relationships when investigating an unexpected result.
The material behind the result
- Sample
- S-043 / aliquot 02
- Reagent
- RG-018
- Protocol
- PR-014 / v03
- Parent sample S-043—Preparation and lineage
- Reagent lot RG-018—Identity, expiry and other uses
Find related work through record identity, not a matching name in a note.
Inspect the example screen in a new tabReagent inventory
Keep lots, quantities and expiry connected to the work using them. Record actual material use and identify affected experiments.
One lot, several experiments
- Identity
- Development reagent
- Status
- Recorded lot status
- Use
- Linked experiment records
- EXP-043—Actual lot selected for the run
- Inventory record—Quantity, location and expiry
Lot changes remain visible when comparing experiment outcomes.
Inspect the example screen in a new tabSample labelling
Identify samples and containers with labels linked to their records. Verify the label content, identity and handling requirements for the workflow.
A label leads to a record
- Identifier
- S-043-A02
- Parent
- S-043
- Use
- EXP-043
- Sample record—Preparation, lineage and storage
- Experiment record—Conditions and results for the aliquot
Scanning identifies the record; the workflow still checks identity and suitability.
Equipment integration
Link equipment and original instrument files to the experiment. Use supported interfaces or Seal IoT capture, with mapping and source verification.
From instrument to experiment
- Instrument
- Reader RD-04
- File
- exp-043-reader.csv
- Capture
- Configured Seal IoT trigger
- Equipment RD-04—Identity and relevant status history
- Source acquisition—Native file and capture metadata
Verify the interface and format; capturing a file is not the same as interpreting it.
Inspect the example screen in a new tabUnderstand the result
Structured search
Find experiments by protocol, recorded conditions, materials, outcome and project. Review differences in units and versions before combining results.
Compare like with like
- Protocol
- PR-014 / v03
- Incubation
- 30 minutes
- Required
- Result and reagent lot present
- EXP-042—RG-017 / relative signal 0.91
- EXP-043—RG-018 / relative signal 0.76
The different reagent lot is part of the comparison, not a detail to discard.
neil for experiment analysis
Ask neil to compare accessible experiments, follow source records and help assemble an investigation. Keep uncertainty and confounding changes visible.
What changed in EXP-043?
- Compare
- EXP-042 and EXP-043
- Same
- Recorded incubation time
- Changed
- Reagent lot
- Evidence—Source measurements and material records
- Next step—Assess the lot change and other recorded conditions
These sample records suggest a question; they do not establish a cause.
Automated reporting
Prepare reports from linked experiment records. Keep source references and versions behind the summary, calculations and interpretation.
A summary with sources
- Scope
- Three development runs
- Result field
- Relative signal
- Review
- Pending scientific assessment
- EXP-041 to EXP-043—Exact run records and source files
- Report revision—Changes and review history
A generated summary remains a draft until the required review is complete.
Inspect the example screen in a new tabLiterature and prior work
Keep internal experiments and relevant publications connected to the question. Inspect the source and distinguish published evidence from an interpretation.
Keep the source behind the claim
- Internal
- Accessible related experiments
- External
- Supplied publications and citations
- Assessment
- Relevance to the current method
- Prior experiments—Protocol version and recorded conditions
- Publication—Citation, source passage and study context
Literature does not replace evidence that the method works for its intended use.
Work as a team
Project collaboration
Share project records with appropriate access. Keep questions and responses connected to the experiment they concern.
A shared investigation
- Question
- What changed between runs?
- Scope
- EXP-041 to EXP-043
- Access
- Assigned project members
- Scientist—Conditions, observations and proposed next step
- Reviewer—Evidence questions and assessment
The requester’s permissions govern which records neil can use.
Inspect the example screen in a new tabWitnessing workflows
Route work to the required reviewer or witness. Keep identity, signature meaning, time and the reviewed version with the record.
Review the evidence before signing
- State
- Awaiting review
- Meaning
- Experiment review
- Version
- Recorded run version
- Source evidence—Measurements, calculations and observations
- Review record—Findings, responses and required signature
This example remains unsigned. A signature is not a guarantee of scientific validity.
Inspect the example screen in a new tabTech transfer ready
Carry development evidence into a proposed QC method. Define the receiving workflow and retain qualification, verification and approval evidence.
Evidence follows the method
- Based on
- Development protocol v03
- Define
- Inputs, calculations and criteria
- Release
- Awaiting evidence review
- Development runs—Recorded variations and outcomes
- Receiving lab—Transfer assessment and required training
A shared platform supports transfer; it does not remove the scientific assessment.
MES integration
Connect development protocols and findings to manufacturing procedures. Review the intended use, process controls and release requirements.
From experiment to operation
- Source
- PR-014 development evidence
- Target
- Manufacturing workflow
- Controls
- Required inputs and review gates
- Experiment history—Evidence behind the proposed method
- Controlled procedure—Approved version for execution
Manufacturing release remains subject to the applicable review and approval.
AQuestions and answers
How is Seal different from adding AI to an existing notebook?
The distinction is what can happen after the answer. neil works with the experiment, sample, material and process records themselves and can help prepare a change to the workflow itself. Your team can review the proposed fields, calculations and controls, verify them and release the configuration. The investigation and the operating change remain connected rather than ending with a summary to implement elsewhere.
Does IT need to develop a separate application?
Standard protocols are configured within Seal using its records, fields, calculations and workflow controls. neil can help prepare that configuration. IT still has an important role in access, source connections, deployment and change governance. A specialised parser or integration may need scoped engineering; the aim is to reuse the platform rather than create a separate application for every assay.
Do we need to replace our LIMS or other systems to start?
No. Start with the protocol and sources needed for the first job, and define which system owns each record. Seal can also run laboratory, manufacturing and quality workflows on the same platform as the ELN. Expand where sharing records and controls creates value, while keeping external sources connected where appropriate.
How should we evaluate whether Seal is better for our team?
Use a representative job, not a generic feature tour. Configure one protocol, run sample experiments, investigate a difference and propose a change. Examine how much evidence must be reassembled, what is reusable and whether the configuration, specifications and verification remain connected. Include a missing input and a changed method so the evaluation covers the difficult parts of the work.
Can scientists still use free text and attachments?
Yes. Combine structured fields with observations and attachments. Define which parameters are required for comparison or controlled work, while keeping room for unexpected findings. Record deliberate variations rather than silently changing the protocol behind an earlier experiment.
What can neil do with our experiments?
neil can help configure protocols, find accessible prior work, compare recorded conditions and prepare an investigation or proposed change. Review the sources and limitations. A pattern is not proof of causation, and a proposed protocol is not a qualified method.
Is our experimental data used to train AI models?
No. Customer data is not used to train AI models. Records in Seal provide working context for neil, subject to the requester’s access permissions. That is different from training the underlying model.
How do instruments connect?
Use the supported interface for the source. The installable Seal IoT agent can watch instrument export folders and run configured upload scripts. Agree the host, access, formats and mapping, and verify capture and interpretation separately. Original files can also remain attached to experiment records.
How does ELN work with LIMS and manufacturing?
They share the Seal platform and its sample, material and method records. Development evidence can support a proposed QC method or manufacturing procedure. Define intended use, controls, transfer evidence and approval before controlled use; sharing a platform does not automatically qualify a method.
How are protocol changes handled?
Keep the proposed version, reason, affected requirements, specifications and verification evidence together. Existing experiments retain the versions used. Apply the required evidence review and approval before releasing a controlled change.
How are calculations verified?
Specify inputs, units, formula, precision and rounding. Check representative values, boundaries, missing inputs and invalid values. Retain the formula version and test evidence with the configuration change, and assess reports or downstream processes that depend on it.
What do witnessing and electronic signatures cover?
Configure the required review and signature meaning for the workflow. Keep identity, time and the reviewed record version attached to the decision. These records support traceability; they do not by themselves guarantee scientific validity or intellectual-
Can we migrate an existing notebook or ELN?
Scope exports, attachments, metadata, permissions and history before agreeing the migration. Map reusable fields where possible, preserve source records and identify gaps. A PDF rendition should not be represented as a recovered native experiment.
What should we bring to a first evaluation?
One protocol, a few representative runs, their source files and a question the team needs to answer. Agree the required structure, calculations, source connections and review. Start with sample material or arrange an NDA before sharing confidential records.