QC sample receipt discrepancies: an unidentified tube example
Record the physical container before asserting its sample identity. Match each received container to the expected submission using evidence, and keep an unreadable or conflicting label unresolved until the laboratory can support the assignment. Equal tube counts do not establish a complete match.
In this guide
Three tubes arrive; only two sample identities are established.
Submission SUB-482 requests S-482-01, S-482-02 and S-482-03. The courier delivers three physical tubes at 09:14. Two labels are readable; the third is damaged. Equal expected and received counts do not establish the identity of the third tube.
Scroll across to see every column →
| Physical container | Observed label | Resolved sample | Receipt decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| RCV-482-A | S-482-01 | S-482-01 | Identity resolved; continue the remaining receipt checks |
| RCV-482-B | S-482-02 | S-482-02 | Identity resolved; continue the remaining receipt checks |
| RCV-482-C | Unreadable | Unresolved | Hold for identity resolution; preserve the tube and label evidence |
The reconciliation is: 3 expected samples, 3 physical containers, 2 confirmed matches, 1 unmatched container and 1 expected sample without a confirmed container. It is tempting to assign RCV-482-C to S-482-03 by elimination. That assignment needs evidence; the counts alone do not support it.
Download this example as CSVReview output and next actions
Identity reconciliation remains open at 09:14. The later 11:05 clarification can resolve the identity link, but cannot retrospectively change what the custodian knew at receipt. Unaffected work follows the receipt procedure and any shipment-wide restrictions.
Receiving custodian
Retain C under its receipt identity, with label evidence and location.
Evidence needed: C can be physically found and its original observation remains available.
Sender clarification owner
Obtain attributable evidence establishing what C represents.
Evidence needed: A supported sample identity or documented replacement relationship; matching counts alone cannot close this item.
Receipt reviewer
After identity resolution, assess condition, amount and test compatibility.
Evidence needed: A separate acceptance outcome covering the applicable receipt requirements.
Open the filled review worksheet
Receipt reconciliation at 09:14
This is a fictional worked assessment to adapt to your procedure and actual evidence.
Source pack
- The submission’s expected sample list, the delivery manifest and a physical-container count.
- The observed labels, condition evidence and the receipt procedure’s acceptance requirements.
- Expected population
- SUB-482: S-482-01, S-482-02 and S-482-03.
- Physical population
- RCV-482-A, RCV-482-B and RCV-482-C; three distinct objects.
- Supported matches
- A → S-482-01; B → S-482-02.
- Open identity gaps
- C has no confirmed sample. S-482-03 has no confirmed received container. These are two views of the unresolved match, not two additional tubes.
Decisions and exceptions
Scroll across to see every column →
| Situation | Response | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Counts agree but one label is unresolved | Retain the unmatched-container and unmatched-sample entries | RCV-482-C remains unresolved; two confirmed matches do not establish the third |
| Sender evidence resolves the label | Record a new resolution and then review the remaining receipt requirements | S-482-03 becomes a confirmed reference; 09:14 remains the receipt time |
| Two physical tubes carry the same expected ID | Investigate the identity collision before creating two accepted instances of the sample | Both observations stay visible and the expected population is not inflated |
Record arrival before resolving the problem.
Create the receipt event and a record for each physical container. Capture the observed label, quantity or volume when required, condition, location and receipt time. Link label photographs and the delivery manifest as Files. The purpose is to preserve what the custodian saw, including uncertainty. An incomplete label should not prevent the laboratory from documenting custody of the tube.
Reconcile the expected sample references against confirmed container-to-sample links. Report unmatched physical containers separately from expected samples with no confirmed receipt. A single 'received count' cannot distinguish these two problems. If the site permits testing of unaffected samples, make the decision at container or sample level and retain any shipment-wide restriction that overrides it.
Resolve identity with evidence, then reassess eligibility.
Assign the discrepancy to the person responsible for sender clarification. Suppose the sender supplies attributable evidence at 11:05 establishing that RCV-482-C is S-482-03. Link that evidence to the discrepancy, record the resolution decision, and populate the confirmed sample reference. Preserve the original 'unreadable' observation and the 09:14 receipt event. Correcting identity is a later event, not a rewrite of the past.
The receiving team then checks the remaining requirements for S-482-03: for example the required amount, observed condition and requested test compatibility. In this example, identity resolution alone does not assert that every receipt requirement is met. If the clarified tube is actually a replacement for another sample, retain the replacement relationship and reassess the expected population explicitly.
Decide what would actually establish the unreadable tube’s identity.
Extend the fictional receipt with a source-evidence review. Ask the sender for records made when the tubes were prepared and packed: the unique container or seal reference, its sample assignment and the dispatch population. Compare those identifiers with the object received. A later statement can explain a source record, but a message saying “the third tube must be S-482-03” adds no independent link when it relies on the same count you already have.
The 11:05 resolution in the example is supportable only if the responsible reviewer accepts evidence linking this physical tube to S-482-03 under the receipt procedure. Record the evidence, who supplied it, who assessed it and the reason. If there is no distinguishing evidence, keep the match unresolved and follow the agreed investigation or recollection route. Do not turn a relabeled tube into proof of its own original identity.
Scroll across to see every column →
| Evidence presented | What it establishes | Receiving decision |
|---|---|---|
| Three tubes and three expected samples | Counts agree; identities may still differ | Keep C and the expected S-482-03 match unresolved |
| A dispatch photo shows a unique secondary container mark mapped to S-482-03 | A potential physical-to-source link, if the mark and chain of custody agree | Review original photo and packing record; record the supported match if accepted |
| A later email names S-482-03 but gives no distinguishing evidence | The sender’s assertion, without an independent container match | Request supporting preparation/dispatch evidence |
| The source record maps the same mark to a different sample | Contradictory identity evidence | Retain the contradiction and investigate; do not choose the convenient match |
Questions this example raises
Should an unidentified tube receive a sample ID?
Give it a receipt-container identity so it can be tracked. Keep its scientific sample reference unresolved until supported. These two identities answer different questions: which object arrived, and which requested sample it represents.
Can the laboratory continue with the other samples?
Check the receipt procedure and the discrepancy’s scope. Two supported identities may allow unaffected work to proceed, but a shipment-wide condition or custody concern can affect more than the unreadable tube.
Inspect the proposed record fields
Download the proposed field list
Start from the Sample management blueprint. The fields below are a proposed design for this case, using Seal’s documented field types and references.
Submission
Represents the work requested by the sender. Keep the expected population explicit so a later receipt can be reconciled against the original request.
- Submission IDText
- SUB-482; retain the sender's identifier separately if it differs.
- Expected samplesReference, multiple
- References to S-482-01, S-482-02 and S-482-03, rather than only a number 3.
- Requested testsReference
- The requested work and applicable sample requirements.
- Submission evidenceReference to Files
- The manifest and correspondence defining the submitted population.
Receipt container
Represents the physical object the custodian observed. It must exist even when its scientific sample identity is unresolved.
- Receipt-container IDText
- RCV-482-C: a local receipt identity that does not assert the sample identity.
- SubmissionReference
- The delivery request this container arrived with.
- Observed labelText
- Record 'unreadable' and retain the actual observation; do not prefill S-482-03.
- Received at / received byTime & date / User
- The actual receipt event, including the time basis used by the site.
- Resolved sampleReference
- Empty until the identity is supported; the sample name is not a substitute for the reference.
- Condition and locationSelect / Reference
- The observed condition and identifiable holding location while resolution is pending.
Receipt discrepancy and acceptance decision
Separates the recorded problem from the later decision about permitted work. A resolved identity can still have a condition or quantity issue.
- Affected containersReference, multiple
- RCV-482-C only, unless the evidence establishes a wider scope.
- Discrepancy kind and observationSelect / Text
- Identity unresolved, with the original label observation.
- Resolution evidenceReference to Files
- The sender's attributable clarification, photographs or other accepted evidence.
- Decision, owner and rationaleSelect / User / Text
- Record the authorised acceptance decision and why it applies to this container.
- Decision timeTime & date
- The actual resolution time; retain 09:14 as the original receipt time.
Seal can keep the submission, physical containers, receipt observations and acceptance decisions in connected records. The practical benefit is that the laboratory can work with resolved samples while the custodian investigates a specific discrepancy. This guide works through an unidentified tube and a proposed record design your team can adapt to its receipt procedure. The identifiers and data below are illustrative.
Configure the records and the decision in Seal.
A manager can create the repeatable records as Templates in a change set. Add the proposed Text, Select, Time & date, User and Reference fields in the Fields sidebar. Use Reference fields for submissions, containers, samples and Files so the reviewer can follow the relationship. Use a Select field for the operational receipt state; distinguish that state from whether a Seal record is a draft, in review or published.
Put the required review and evidence checks on the acceptance-decision record. Do not require every container to be accepted before the receipt observation itself can be recorded or published: that would obstruct preservation of the discrepancy. A proposed acceptance Check should reject a decision that has no resolved sample reference or no required resolution evidence. Verify that behaviour in the configured workflow. Seal's publication Checks do not, by themselves, interlock a physical instrument or every external testing system.
If testing starts in another LIMS, agree how the accepted sample identity and permitted work are transferred, how the receiving system acknowledges the change, and what happens if the acknowledgement is absent. Keep 'accepted in the receipt review' separate from 'available for execution in the receiving system'. This is a connection to scope and test, rather than a consequence of adding a Reference field.
Configuration references
The record design above is illustrative. These product documentation pages explain the Seal capabilities used in it. They open in the signed-in Seal platform.
Acceptance tests
Download these acceptance cases
These are proposed acceptance tests for the configured workflow. They describe expected behaviour to verify, rather than results of a customer implementation.
Equal counts with one unidentified tube
Input: Load SUB-482 with three expected sample references and the three observed containers above. Leave RCV-482-C's resolved sample empty.
Expected: The reconciliation shows two confirmed matches and two distinct open identity gaps. Attempting the proposed acceptance decision for RCV-482-C fails its configured evidence check; recording the receipt observation remains possible.
Scan the same container twice
Input: Present RCV-482-A's barcode twice during the same receipt session.
Expected: The configured scan or import route resolves to the same physical-container record. The physical count remains three. If the interface cannot determine that identity, it raises a duplicate for resolution instead of quietly creating a fourth tube.
Resolve the discrepancy after receipt
Input: Attach the 11:05 sender clarification and record a reviewed identity resolution for RCV-482-C.
Expected: The sample reference resolves to S-482-03, while the original observation, receipt timestamp and clarification remain inspectable. Any separate condition hold remains open until its own decision is recorded.
Apply this to your records
Use one shipment. Account for the expected samples and the physical objects separately, then record the evidence for each supported match and the work needed for each unresolved object.
Download the blank working review
Write your working notes here
Notes stay in this tab and are not submitted. Download them before leaving to keep a copy. Use record references to identify your evidence.
Name the submission and manifest revisions. List expected sample IDs and actual receipt-container IDs; include physical count, receipt time and custodian. Mark unmatched items on both lists.
For each proposed match, cite the observed label or distinguishing physical mark and its source assignment. Record duplicate labels, unreadable identifiers and contradictory sender evidence without resolving them by elimination.
Identify the receipt procedure and intended tests. Record the observed condition, transport evidence, quantity and applicable acceptance criteria separately from identity. Which concerns affect only one tube, and which affect the shipment?
Identify what arrived later, who supplied it, when it was received and why the reviewer accepts or rejects the proposed match. Preserve the original receipt observation and distinguish identity resolution from permission to test.
For every exception, record the assigned owner, next action and evidence needed: supported assignment, procedure-defined rejection/recollection, or continued investigation. Identify how the sender and receiving laboratory will be informed.
Unanswered sections remain marked ‘Not recorded’ in the download.
Evidence needed to finish
The review accounts for every expected sample and received object, cites the basis of each accepted identity, and states the applicable receipt disposition. Any unresolved match has an owner and next action. Equal counts or a newly printed label do not close the identity question.
Review the evidence with neil
Review SUB-482 against its receipt containers. List confirmed matches, expected samples without a confirmed container and physical containers without a resolved sample. For each proposed resolution, link the original observation and supporting evidence. Draft follow-up requests for the receipt owner; do not infer the damaged tube's identity from matching counts.
Review the proposed output against these deliverables:
- A reconciliation with separate expected, observed and confirmed populations.
- A container-specific list of unresolved identity, quantity or condition questions.
- Source links supporting proposed resolutions and a draft handover for the responsible reviewer.
Configure this process with Seal
Use a representative source record and an exception your current process struggles with. We can work through the record design, review responsibilities and connection requirements with you.
Discuss this workflow with Seal