1Connect the LabWare sample lifecycle to the batch being reviewed.
A batch review needs more than a result value. Seal’s LabWare binding is read-only: it reads approved REST resources through Scripts and does not write to the LIMS. From those reads, Seal can bring the request, collected sample, assigned tests and reviewed laboratory evidence together, so the reviewer can see which work is complete and which result still needs attention.
2Choose the source route.
An approved REST read service
LabWare describes direct, file-based and API-driven integration, including REST/JSON, XML and CSV. Its public overview establishes the available approaches; the installed configuration supplies the actual operations and field contract.¹
In Seal: Agree the read service with the LabWare owner. Capture one real response before defining the Seal mapping. Specify the resources, credentials, completion signal and recovery query for that service.
Manufacturing requests and laboratory results
LabWare’s published PAS-X example separates a manufacturing sample request, returned sample details, collection confirmation and laboratory results. This is a documented MES/LIMS pattern; it is not a claim that the PAS-X connector connects Seal.²
In Seal: Your Script can read these events and keep them as distinct events linked to the batch. A returned sample ID enables identification and labelling; it does not prove collection. A received numeric result does not, by itself, establish that laboratory review is complete.
Lot review and reporting
LabWare describes lot status tracking, data review, lot release and certificate-of-analysis reporting as parts of its lot-management capability.³
In Seal: Bring the applicable test and lot states into the batch review with the source timestamp. Use the source owner’s status definitions to determine which results can support the requested review.
3Read one manufacturing sample through the MES–LIMS exchange.
Seal’s LabWare binding is read-only: it reads approved REST resources through Scripts and does not write to the LIMS. The request, collection and result exchanges below pass between the MES and LabWare; Seal reads and reconciles them. Use one disposable batch/sample in the test environment, with two required tests and known result units. The aim is to establish when a request becomes a collected sample, when results arrive and when those results are eligible for the batch review. Run each transition separately so missing events are visible.
Download the first-run procedure and receiving checks
Write down the four events and where Seal reads them
With the LabWare owner, identify the approved REST read resources that expose the MES sample request, the returned sample identity, the collection information and the results/status. For every resource, record the fields, success evidence and a supported way to query the outcome. LabWare’s public integration overview does not supply a universal endpoint or authentication recipe.
Check: The implementation note names the actual environment and configured resources. It also states which system owns the sample ID, collection record, test assignment and review state. Resolve an unavailable resource before relying on it in the batch workflow.¹²
Link the returned sample to the original request
Have the MES raise one request for B-820 in the test environment. Read REQ-820 as the originating request identity and the returned LabWare sample identity as LW-S820 in this fictional example. Capture the assigned test list and the source evidence for the association.
Check: A second lookup of REQ-820 resolves to the same intended sample. If the MES loses the first response, establish whether that sample already exists before it creates another one. A matching batch name alone is not enough when several samples are planned.
Record collection as its own event
Record the test collection and its source time, location and collector in the MES using the agreed workflow. Read the resulting collection confirmation and connect it to LW-S820. Retain request time, collection time and laboratory receipt time as different fields when all are needed.
Check: The receiving record can identify the physical collection represented by COL-820. Temporarily omit the confirmation in a test copy: the sample identity may still be present, but the batch review must show the missing collection evidence.²
Compare result identity, units and review eligibility
Read the two worked results below. Confirm the destination field definitions before conversion: on an unchanged sample basis, g/L to mg/L multiplies the number by 1000. Separately map the actual LabWare review-state codes to the states used in Seal’s review view.
Check: The glucose comparison is 1200 mg/L and lactate is 800 mg/L. Both original values remain available. The review has two received values but only one approved result; a unit conversion must not change that count.
Receive a status update without inventing a new measurement
Complete the lactate review through the authorised laboratory workflow in the test environment, then retrieve the updated source evidence. The expected update concerns the existing LAC result. Capture a source revision or observation time so the change can be explained.
Check: The proposed review moves from one to two eligible results while preserving the same two measurement identities and their values. A later status observation is not a third laboratory measurement, and laboratory approval alone does not automatically dispose the manufacturing batch.³
Define what each exchange proves
Use this checklist to inspect the configured interface with its owner. The field labels are proposed mapping concepts; substitute the actual LabWare schema and state codes.²³
| Exchange | Evidence to retain | Conclusion it supports |
|---|---|---|
| Sample request acknowledgement | Originating request, returned sample, batch and assigned tests | The request is associated with the intended laboratory work; collection is still a separate fact. |
| Collection confirmation | Sample identity, collection event and time, relevant location and collector | The identified sample was collected under the agreed workflow. |
| Numeric or qualified result | Test/result instance, original text, unit, sample basis and source revision | The selected measurement was received. Text such as <0.05 retains its qualifier; it is not converted into an exact 0.05. |
| Review-state update | Result identity, source state and source observation/revision | The result has reached the mapped review state. An unknown code remains unresolved. |
| Lot disposition or report | Lot identity, disposition/report reference and applicable state | A separately identified lot or report decision exists; result arrival is not that decision. |
A four-event specimen for B-820
Fictional event worksheet for discussing the configured mapping. Empty cells mean the field is not supplied by that event. This is not a default LabWare export or a sequence of vendor API commands.
event,request,sample,collection,test,result,value,unit,review
request_ack,REQ-820,LW-S820,,,,,,
collection,REQ-820,LW-S820,COL-820,,,,,
result,REQ-820,LW-S820,,GLU,LW-R820G,1.20,g/L,Approved
result,REQ-820,LW-S820,,LAC,LW-R820L,0.80,g/L,Awaiting reviewThe expected population is one originating request, one laboratory sample, one collection event and two result instances. The first event establishes identity, the second establishes collection and the last two carry measurements. Counting four events as four samples or four scientific results would be incorrect.
4Two numeric results arrive, but one is still awaiting review.
Fictional normalised exchange for batch B-820. These labels and statuses describe the proposed mapping and must be matched to the actual LabWare interface; they are not vendor API field names or default state codes.
| Source information | Example identity or value | Why it stays distinct |
|---|---|---|
| Request → sample → collection | REQ-820 → LW-S820 → COL-820 | Retain the manufacturing request and physical collection event separately from the assigned laboratory sample ID. |
| Test and result instance | GLU / LW-R820G and LAC / LW-R820L | The sample has two tests. Match each result to its intended test and retain repeat or revision identity when present. |
| Source and comparison quantity | 1.20 g/L → 1200 mg/L | Retain both representations and the conversion basis. Unit conversion does not decide whether another dilution factor applies. |
| Review coverage | 2 expected; 2 received; 1 approved | Keep data presence separate from eligibility for review. Do not collapse both counts into a single Complete flag. |
On the same sample basis, 1.20 g/L becomes 1200 mg/L and 0.80 g/L becomes 800 mg/L. Those conversions do not change review state. Seal’s proposed review shows two values received and one result approved; the lactate review remains visible as outstanding work.
Inspect the source and proposed destination records
Source example
{
"request": "REQ-820",
"sample": "LW-S820",
"collection": {
"event": "COL-820",
"collectedAt": "2026-09-10T09:15:00Z"
},
"results": [
{
"test": "GLU",
"result": "LW-R820G",
"value": "1.20",
"unit": "g/L",
"review": "Approved"
},
{
"test": "LAC",
"result": "LW-R820L",
"value": "0.80",
"unit": "g/L",
"review": "Awaiting review"
}
]
}Proposed Seal records
{
"batch": "B-820",
"request": "REQ-820",
"sourceSample": "LW-S820",
"collectionEvent": "COL-820",
"results": [
{
"sourceResult": "LW-R820G",
"test": "GLU",
"sourceValue": "1.20",
"sourceUnit": "g/L",
"comparisonValue": 1200,
"comparisonUnit": "mg/L",
"sourceReview": "Approved"
},
{
"sourceResult": "LW-R820L",
"test": "LAC",
"sourceValue": "0.80",
"sourceUnit": "g/L",
"comparisonValue": 800,
"comparisonUnit": "mg/L",
"sourceReview": "Awaiting review"
}
],
"reviewCoverage": {
"expectedTests": 2,
"valuesReceived": 2,
"approvedResults": 1,
"outstanding": "LAC review"
}
}5Run these cases against the proposed Seal mapping.
These are worked test inputs and expected outcomes to verify in your configured connection.
Receive results before collection evidence
Input: Read the two result events while the collection confirmation is absent, then read COL-820 later.
Expected: The values remain linked to LW-S820. The missing collection evidence is visible until COL-820 arrives; adding it does not create another sample or another result.
Read the same result versions twice
Input: Read the identical GLU and LAC source result versions a second time.
Expected: The receiving view still has two scientific results and can trace both reads. The expected-test population remains two.
Change review state only
Input: Provide a later source observation that approves LW-R820L without changing 0.80 g/L.
Expected: The eligibility count changes from one of two to two of two. The original quantity, comparison quantity and result identity stay intact, with the review update traceable.
Read a qualified value or unknown status
Input: In separate test copies, replace the result text with <0.05 g/L, or use a source review code not yet in the mapping.
Expected: The qualified quantity retains its less-than meaning; any converted representation is <50 mg/L on the same basis. The unmapped status does not become Approved. Each exception identifies the affected result.
What to bring to the implementation review
Bring response specimens for all four events, the sample-to-request association, assigned tests, destination unit definitions and the approved source-status mapping. Seal can then make missing collection, missing testing and pending review separate, actionable items in a batch evidence review.
6Diagnose the failure from the source evidence.
A sample ID exists, but collection is missing
Request acknowledgement and physical collection are different events in the documented MES exchange.²
Find the collection confirmation for the assigned sample. If it has not arrived, show collection as unresolved rather than inferring a collection time from the request or result timestamp.
A result differs by a factor of 1000
The proposed mapping compares g/L source values in mg/L. Copying the numeric text unchanged would create a three-order-of-magnitude error.
Compare the original value, source unit, destination unit and sample basis. For the worked glucose result, the receiving comparison must be 1200 mg/L while the preserved source remains 1.20 g/L.
The batch looks complete before the laboratory review
Data arrival, result review and lot disposition answer different questions.
Compare the expected test list with both result presence and mapped review state. Keep an unrecognised source status visible for resolution; do not automatically map it to Approved.
7Apply this to your records
Use this with the LabWare sample lifecycle first-run procedure. Retain the actual configuration and evidence, then record what happened in each receiving exercise. Expected behaviour is printed as a prompt; your observed result starts blank.
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.
Record the installed LabWare configuration, approved REST read resources, authentication method and the query used to check each outcome. Identify which system owns requests, sample IDs, collection, test assignment and review status. Retain a real request/response or export specimen.
Trace one manufacturing request to its returned sample ID and physical collection event. List expected tests and result instances. Keep request, collection, result-arrival and review timestamps separate, with their source evidence.
Record original and comparison values/units, qualifiers, preparation basis and source status mappings for each result. Compare expected tests with values received and reviews completed; list unknown statuses and missing events individually.
Input: Read the two result events while the collection confirmation is absent, then read COL-820 later. Expected: The values remain linked to LW-S820. The missing collection evidence is visible until COL-820 arrives; adding it does not create another sample or another result. Record the actual input/evidence references, observed result, whether it matches the expectation and any unresolved issue.
Input: Read the identical GLU and LAC source result versions a second time. Expected: The receiving view still has two scientific results and can trace both reads. The expected-test population remains two. Record the actual input/evidence references, observed result, whether it matches the expectation and any unresolved issue.
Input: Provide a later source observation that approves LW-R820L without changing 0.80 g/L. Expected: The eligibility count changes from one of two to two of two. The original quantity, comparison quantity and result identity stay intact, with the review update traceable. Record the actual input/evidence references, observed result, whether it matches the expectation and any unresolved issue.
Input: In separate test copies, replace the result text with <0.05 g/L, or use a source review code not yet in the mapping. Expected: The qualified quantity retains its less-than meaning; any converted representation is <50 mg/L on the same basis. The unmapped status does not become Approved. Each exception identifies the affected result. Record the actual input/evidence references, observed result, whether it matches the expectation and any unresolved issue.
Identify the configuration/mapping revision tested, reviewer, open issues and owner for each next action. Cite the retained source and destination evidence. A filled note is not itself an accepted test; record the review decision through your actual process.
Unanswered sections remain marked ‘Not recorded’ in the download.
Evidence needed to finish
The request-to-collection relationship is supported, result conversions preserve meaning and review coverage agrees with the expected tests. Data arrival cannot stand in for collection or laboratory approval. The exchange owner can identify the exact outstanding event, result or review.
8Use the connected evidence in a review.
Ask Neil to prepare B-820’s laboratory evidence summary: identify the collected sample, show each result with its original and comparison unit, and name the outstanding lactate review. The supporting links should lead to the specific source sample and result instances.