All use cases

Work through an SOP change.

Ask neil to trace a revised requirement into the process. Inspect the proposed changes, try the boundary cases and get a change package that preserves existing controls and version history.

Book a demo
Illustration of a seal following successive procedure versions and the version used for a batch.

You: We’re shortening the hold in SOP-014. What else needs to change?

neil

The workflow still allows 45 minutes. Changing the SOP alone won’t change that check.

I found it in . I can draft the 30-minute rule, test cases and operator changes together.

See what I compared

The selected excerpts define the same clock endpoints and second-level precision. v05 is proposed; its scientific rationale and effective date haven’t been supplied.

Example records. A connected document system can supply revisions; the process mapping uses permitted Seal configuration records. No live query is performed here.

You: Yes. Keep the temperature check and QA approval.

neil

Both stay. The draft keeps 2–8 °C throughout the hold and requires QA approval separately from the time check.

Proposed workflow changes30-minute rule, retained controls and operator readiness

WF-HOLD-014

v09 proposal
Time check2700 → 1800 s

Set the maximum to 1800 seconds. Keep the elapsed calculation at second precision; do not round 30:01 down to 30 minutes.

Below, at and above the boundary; missing and reversed timestamps; confirm exception routing without losing the original record.

Capture and reviewRetain

Keep start/end timestamps, operator, temperature evidence and the QA decision reference. Preserve the existing missing-evidence and exception paths.

A passing time check must not bypass temperature review or an absent or unauthorised QA approval.

Operator readinessAssess

Assess the shorter intervention window for operators and supervisors; prepare the changed instruction and role-specific checks.

The owner confirms the affected population, required qualification and completion before effective use.

You: What if it runs one second over?

neil

At 30:01, the proposed check needs an exception review. I’ve kept seconds in the calculation so it can’t round down to a pass.

30:01min : sec
Current 45-minute limitWithin time limit
Proposed 30-minute limitException review

Recorded duration exceeds 30 minutes. Retain the readings and route the exception.

Try another hold
Inspect the rule and test casesvalid timestamps → elapsed seconds ≤ 1800

“No more than” includes exactly 30 minutes. Keep second-level precision; do not round an over-limit duration down. Missing or reversed timestamps cannot produce a pass.

This local model exercises time logic only. Verify timestamp capture, exception routing, permissions, temperature evidence and QA controls in the configured workflow.

You: And if someone forgets the end time?

neil

No duration, no pass. The draft asks for the missing time; it doesn’t treat an empty field as zero.

I’ve included that case, reversed timestamps and the exact 30-minute boundary in the verification plan. Your team still needs to run those tests in the configured workflow.

This demo uses prewritten replies.

Bring the procedure. Follow it into the work.

Give neil the current and proposed revisions, the reason for changing them and access to the affected process. Review what changes, what stays, and the evidence needed before the new process takes effect.

Book a demo
Current v04

SOP-014-v04

Intermediate hold procedure

Clause 6.3
Hold the intermediate for no more than 45 minutes before the next operation.
Clock basis
Elapsed time from recorded hold start to hold end, measured in seconds.
Clause 6.4
Maintain 2–8 °C throughout the hold.
Clause 6.5
Obtain the required QA approval before the next operation.
Applicability
Current assigned procedure for the example executions

Selected procedure excerpt. The full procedure and its applicability need review; a time check alone does not authorise the next operation.

Browse all use cases