Connect the right Empower export to the right result
An Empower Export Method can provide selected fields, report output or raw channel data. Seal can retain the source files together and map the selected scientific values into sample and batch records. The export definition determines what those files mean.
Choose the source route
Fields and tables
The Fields tab supports selected database fields and tables in ASCII output, with configurable delimiters and report grouping. Waters: exporting database fields and tables.
In Seal: Choose the sample, result, injection and component fields needed by the receiving workflow. Record the table layout and grouping alongside the mapped values.
Report output
An Export Method can use a selected Report Method and formats such as PDF or ASCII. Waters: exports using a Report Method.
In Seal: Retain the report used for comparison with the imported result. A visually formatted report and a machine-readable table can represent the same evidence with different layouts.
Raw data
The Raw Data tab supports exports including ASCII and AIA. Waters: exporting raw data.
In Seal: Use the trace as channel evidence with its identity and units. Keep selected evaluated results separate; the receiving workflow should not infer a reported concentration from a raw trace.
Build and check the first Empower Export Method
Use a test result with at least two named components, then add a second injection. This exposes row-grouping mistakes that a single-peak file cannot reveal. The target is a repeatable export whose result identities, component values and sample context can be compared directly with the receiving Seal records.
Download the first-run procedure and receiving checks
Create a Fields export in the project
Open the Project window and create an Export Method from New Method. On Fields, enter a file root name, enable Export ASCII File and choose the output folder. For a table export, enable Export Table Data, use Load Table and edit the selected table to include the required component values.
Check: Save a named method for the evaluation. Record the selected table, output folder and column layout so another operator can generate the same kind of specimen.
Set grouping and include the sample identifiers
Choose the report grouping deliberately. Enable Export Field Data and include Sample Name and Injection alongside the table. Record the column, row and text delimiters, label orientation, and whether fields precede or follow the table.
Check: The file may contain an identifier block plus a table rather than one flat CSV. Test its actual structure. Exported row numbers are useful for tracing lines within a file but must not become the scientific result identity.
Waters: Fields-tab settings · Waters: exporting results with an Export Method
Run the method on selected results
Save the method. On the Results tab, right-click the selected result or results and choose Export. In Background Processing and Reporting, select Use Specified Export Method, choose the saved method and confirm.
Check: Open the file from the configured folder and compare every selected component with the source result. Keep the file’s actual extension and Result ID context; opening it in a spreadsheet does not change the export contract.
Export trace evidence separately when required
For ASCII trace output, use Raw Data, select the format and destination, include the x axis when needed, choose delimiters and add sample fields. For CDF, select AIA and File on Raw Data.
Check: Use trace files to preserve signal evidence. Waters notes that CDF does not contain the Empower processing methods and can differ in precision; compare selected numeric results through controlled peak-table exports, not by treating CDF as an equivalent processed report.
Waters: raw data with sample fields · Waters: CDF scope and numeric comparison
Test the configured automated route as a separate step
After the manual specimen is reconciled, trigger the intended automated export and compare its method, selected population and output. For the documented Empower 3 case where PDF reports do not export despite an Export Method in Run Samples, Waters directs users to add the Export Method to the Method Set.
Check: Confirm that the expected file actually arrives after the intended event. A successful manual export does not prove that the run uses the same Export Method or produces the same reviewed result population.
Choose grouping before deciding what one file represents
The Fields-tab report type controls grouping. Preserve that setting with the mapping and exercise it using multiple injections. A parser that assumes one result per file can appear correct on a small specimen and silently lose data later.
Scroll across to see every column →
| Export grouping | Source grouping | What the receiving mapping must preserve |
|---|---|---|
| Individual | Separate output for each exported data item; channels or results within a set are separate | Read the selected result/component population, not a guessed count based on the number of files. |
| Summary By All | One summary for the selected data items | Keep the sample, injection and result identity for every component represented in the summary. |
| Summary By Vial | One summary per vial | Retain the separate injections within that vial; repeated injections are not duplicate deliveries. |
| Summary By Injection | One summary per injection | Retain all selected components and evaluations within the injection context. |
| Area Component Summary table | A supported example places samples down rows and peak names across columns | Map component columns explicitly. Preserve the source result association; a sample label alone cannot distinguish repeated injections. |
Waters: Fields-tab settings · Waters: Area Component Summary export
A two-injection specimen that exposes overwritten component rows
Fictional normalized mapping worksheet derived from the fields selected for the evaluation. It is not a default Empower export format. Use an actual Export Method specimen to establish its headers, blocks, delimiters and quantity units.
project,result_set,sample,injection,result,component,area,area_unit
QC-DEMO,RS-18,S-482-01,INJ-06,RES-91,Main,125000,mAU*s
QC-DEMO,RS-18,S-482-01,INJ-06,RES-91,Impurity A,420,mAU*s
QC-DEMO,RS-18,S-482-01,INJ-07,RES-92,Main,124500,mAU*s
QC-DEMO,RS-18,S-482-01,INJ-07,RES-92,Impurity A,435,mAU*sThe expected receiving population is two source results and four component measurements for one sample. Deduplicating by sample would lose an injection. Deduplicating by result alone would lose a component. Within the agreed project and evaluation scope, both result identity and component identity are needed.
Two components from one injection remain two selected result rows
Fictional projection from an agreed export table. These headings are illustrative labels for the mapping contract, not a promise of a default Empower file layout. Acquisition and chromatographic evaluation remain in Empower.
Scroll across to see every column →
| Source information | Example identity or value | Why it stays distinct |
|---|---|---|
| Project and result identity | QC-DEMO / RS-18 / RES-91 | Scope the source identity to its installation/project so reused labels cannot collide. |
| Injection | INJ-06 | Retain acquisition context when several evaluations or report rows refer to the same injection. |
| Component | Main or Impurity A | Distinguish the selected rows within the evaluation. Preserve component naming and the source calculation context. |
| Area | 125000 or 420 mAU·s in this fictional export | Keep the source area definition. Area is not a concentration or purity percentage without the method’s calculation. |
The result identity alone does not identify a component row. Keep the component within its evaluation so the second row cannot overwrite the first. A later reprocessed result needs its own source identity and review; a repeat delivery of this same table should recover the existing rows.
Inspect the source and proposed destination records
Source example
{
"sourceProject": "QC-DEMO",
"resultSet": "RS-18",
"areaUnit": "mAU·s",
"rows": [
{
"sample": "S-482-01",
"injection": "INJ-06",
"result": "RES-91",
"component": "Main",
"area": 125000
},
{
"sample": "S-482-01",
"injection": "INJ-06",
"result": "RES-91",
"component": "Impurity A",
"area": 420
}
]
}Proposed Seal records
{
"sample": "S-482-01",
"sourceEvaluation": {
"project": "QC-DEMO",
"resultSet": "RS-18",
"injection": "INJ-06",
"result": "RES-91"
},
"selectedRows": [
{
"component": "Main",
"sourceArea": 125000,
"unit": "mAU·s"
},
{
"component": "Impurity A",
"sourceArea": 420,
"unit": "mAU·s"
}
],
"retainedExport": true
}Run these cases against the proposed Seal mapping
These are worked test inputs and expected outcomes to verify in your configured connection.
Import all four component measurements
Input: Map the complete worksheet above through the proposed receiving design.
Expected: RES-91 retains Main 125000 and Impurity A 420; RES-92 retains Main 124500 and Impurity A 435. Both injections point to S-482-01 and retain their source unit.
Deliver exactly the same file again
Input: Resend the unchanged specimen under the same source/evaluation contract.
Expected: There are still two results and four measurements. The repeated delivery is traceable without replacing one component with another or creating extra scientific results.
Add a newly evaluated result
Input: Provide RES-93 as a later evaluation of INJ-06, with Main 125100 and Impurity A 418, preserving RES-91.
Expected: The new evaluation has its own two measurements and relationship to the earlier result. The receiving review identifies the changed values; arrival order does not silently erase RES-91.
Change table shape without changing the science
Input: Export equivalent selected data using a summary table with component names as columns rather than component rows.
Expected: A mapping approved for the original layout either rejects the unfamiliar shape for review or uses a separately verified layout mapping. It never reports a successful two-row import while dropping two component measurements.
What to bring to the implementation review
Keep the named Export Method, its Fields/Report/Raw Data settings, two-injection specimen, quantity-unit evidence and expected result/component counts together. Seal can use this package to define a receiving mapping that survives repeated delivery, multiple components and later evaluations, while keeping the Empower source files available for review.
Diagnose the failure from the source evidence
A comma-separated result is missed by collection
Waters documents comma-separated ASCII results and the .txt extension for Fields-tab ASCII exports. Waters: Empower export file extensions.
Agree both the file pattern and actual delimiter with the Export Method. A collector restricted to .csv can miss a valid comma-separated .txt file.
A repeated submission has the same filename
Waters documents normal export naming based on a root name and result ID, so a resend may reuse the name. Waters: repeated exports and filenames.
Preserve the received content and source identity, then reconcile it. A familiar filename is insufficient evidence that the previous import completed.
The number of rows changes after an Export Method edit
Individual and summary grouping, selected fields and table layout affect the shape of the export. Waters: exporting database fields and tables.
Compare the chosen method with the saved mapping contract. Test a multi-component injection again before using the changed layout.
Apply this to your records
Use this with the Waters Empower Export Method first-run procedure. Retain the actual configuration and evidence, then record what happened in each receiving exercise. Expected behavior 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 Empower version, Export Method and Method Set where used. Identify Fields, Report and Raw Data selections, grouping settings, destination and retained export specimen. Separate database-field results from raw-signal evidence.
List the result set, injection and result/evaluation identities. For each exported row, retain the component identity and grouping basis. Reconcile expected injections and component rows with the exported population.
Compare the chosen source field, reported unit, working precision and result basis with the destination. For the two-injection exercise, account for all four component rows; do not let a summary or filename overwrite an individual result relationship.
Input: Map the complete worksheet above through the proposed receiving design. Expected: RES-91 retains Main 125000 and Impurity A 420; RES-92 retains Main 124500 and Impurity A 435. Both injections point to S-482-01 and retain their source unit. Record the actual input/evidence references, observed result, whether it matches the expectation and any unresolved issue.
Input: Resend the unchanged specimen under the same source/evaluation contract. Expected: There are still two results and four measurements. The repeated delivery is traceable without replacing one component with another or creating extra scientific results. Record the actual input/evidence references, observed result, whether it matches the expectation and any unresolved issue.
Input: Provide RES-93 as a later evaluation of INJ-06, with Main 125100 and Impurity A 418, preserving RES-91. Expected: The new evaluation has its own two measurements and relationship to the earlier result. The receiving review identifies the changed values; arrival order does not silently erase RES-91. Record the actual input/evidence references, observed result, whether it matches the expectation and any unresolved issue.
Input: Export equivalent selected data using a summary table with component names as columns rather than component rows. Expected: A mapping approved for the original layout either rejects the unfamiliar shape for review or uses a separately verified layout mapping. It never reports a successful two-row import while dropping two component measurements. 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 source selection and grouping produce the expected injection/component population, original and later evaluations remain distinguishable, and repeated export does not create extra scientific results. The packet includes actual export settings and observed outcomes, not only a successful file transfer.
Use the connected evidence in a review
Ask neil to trace both component rows for S-482-01 to their Empower result and compare a later evaluation with RES-91. The answer should preserve both components, identify the source evidence for each change and distinguish repeated delivery from a newly evaluated result.
Test duplicate delivery and reprocessing →