The problem: QA review chasing paper signatures
Release records need a signed entry and a QA approval. When those happen on paper or in separate systems, review slows down and the trail has gaps.
The scientist finishes the entry, prints it or emails a PDF, and waits for QA to sign. Comments come back on paper, and the final record has to be pieced together from several places.
What this demo shows
- Create the entry from a template.
- Record the results and sign with a PIN.
- A QA reviewer approves the release record.
- The event log records each move.
Why it matters
Release records need a clear chain from data entry to approval. Templates keep entries consistent, PIN signatures lock them, and QA review happens on the same record.
With every move logged, the full history of the record is available for inspection without chasing paper.
See it with your own data
This video is part of Electronic Lab Notebook. To see how it would work with your own formulations and records, request a demo. Our team replies within 30 minutes during business hours.
Read the transcript
Here is one batch from a notebook draft to a signed entry and an approved record. A scientist creates the notebook entry for the release measurement and picks a template. Each entry starts from the same sections, so records stay consistent. Signing with a PIN locks the entry and adds a signature block. The release record for the batch then moves from draft to QA review.
A QA reviewer comments and approves, and the record moves to approved with the reviewer's name and the time on it. The event log records each move with who made it and when. Uncountable connects R&D, quality, and product lifecycle data in one platform.
