All use cases

Review chromatography integration changes.

Connect original and reprocessed chromatograms, integration changes and reviewer rationale in a source-linked review package.

Book a demo
Illustration of a seal studying collected fractions beside a chromatography column, with a red peak below.

You: Compare the two integrations of INJ-103. What changed, and what does the reviewer need?

neil

The reported value changed from 0.18% to 0.12% after the baseline start was changed. The audit trail records a baseline-adjustment reason, but the review is absent. These are two versions of one injection, not two independent measurements.

Same injection; integration changed
Same injection; integration changed. 0.18%, 0.12%, Original, Reprocessed. Example records.0.18%→0.12%OriginalReprocessed

You: Can we use the lower result?

neil

The numerical improvement is not the justification. I would compare the original signal, baseline boundaries, method rules and recorded reason, then ask the reviewer whether the processing is justified. Both versions must remain visible; this comparison does not approve the reintegration.

You: Write this up for review, with the sources and the follow-up work we need.

neil

Here is the draft. I have kept the supported finding separate from the open questions, and prepared the evidence requests for the responsible roles.

INJ-103 integration reviewReview draft · source evidence and assessment

INJ-103 integration review

The reported impurity decreases by 0.06 percentage points after the baseline start changes. Because both versions use the same injection, they are not independent experimental confirmations. Compare the peak boundaries and method instructions with the audit-trail rationale, retaining both result versions. The next review needs to explain why the integration is appropriate, not merely why the newer number is lower.

Source evidence and search scope

INJ-103-A (Original processing); INJ-103-B (Reprocessed result); AT-103 (Audit-trail event)

INJ-103-A / Original processing

Recorded evidence
Impurity peak: 0.18%

INJ-103-B / Reprocessed result

Recorded evidence
Impurity peak: 0.12%; baseline start changed

AT-103 / Audit-trail event

Recorded evidence
Reason field says baseline adjustment; reviewer assessment absent
Inputs needed for your own records
  • Original and reprocessed result exports with acquisition identifiers
  • Integration parameters and relevant audit-trail events
  • Method instructions and reviewer comments

An authorised analytical reviewer assesses the integration against the method and raw data. neil does not select the most favourable result or approve reprocessing.

Fictional source snapshots. No live query, assignment or approval.

Follow-up work and evidence requests2 proposed tasks · not assigned

Evidence to request

Inspect signal and processing together
Chromatography reviewer
Compare original and revised boundaries on the same acquisition against the applicable method and integration rules.
Record the processing decision
Laboratory quality reviewer
Assess the baseline-adjustment rationale and audit trail. Preserve the original 0.18% result and the 0.12% revision with the review outcome.
Example conversation · prepared replies

See this job with your team.

Tell us how your team handles this job today. We’ll walk through the analysis, supporting evidence and review steps in a demo.

Book a demo
What to bring for this job
  • Original and reprocessed result exports with acquisition identifiers
  • Integration parameters and relevant audit-trail events
  • Method instructions and reviewer comments

Source access, permissions and permitted actions are agreed for your environment.

Source excerpt

INJ-103-A

Original processing

Recorded evidence
Impurity peak: 0.18%

Selected fictional record, not a live source-system view.

Browse all use cases