Receipt reconciliation at 09:14
Filled fictional example — 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.

FINDINGS
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.

NEXT WORK AND CLOSURE EVIDENCE
Receiving custodian
Action: 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
Action: 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
Action: After identity resolution, assess condition, amount and test compatibility.
Evidence needed: A separate acceptance outcome covering the applicable receipt requirements.

CONCLUSION
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.

WORKED EVIDENCE REVIEW
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.
WHO’s clinical-laboratory handbook (§5-4) distinguishes logging receipt from sample acceptance and discusses documenting rejection, informing the requester and obtaining replacement samples. This QC example uses that distinction as practical context. Its identity-recovery path still depends on the receiving laboratory’s own acceptance procedure.
WHO: Laboratory Quality Management System handbook, §5-4: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/44665/9789241548274_eng.pdf?sequence=1
Candidate evidence for RCV-482-C — illustrative assessment
Evidence presented: Three tubes and three expected samples
What it establishes: Counts agree; identities may still differ
Receiving decision: Keep C and the expected S-482-03 match unresolved
Evidence presented: A dispatch photo shows a unique secondary container mark mapped to S-482-03
What it establishes: A potential physical-to-source link, if the mark and chain of custody agree
Receiving decision: Review original photo and packing record; record the supported match if accepted
Evidence presented: A later email names S-482-03 but gives no distinguishing evidence
What it establishes: The sender’s assertion, without an independent container match
Receiving decision: Request supporting preparation/dispatch evidence
Evidence presented: The source record maps the same mark to a different sample
What it establishes: Contradictory identity evidence
Receiving decision: Retain the contradiction and investigate; do not choose the convenient match