Most errors in a quick review come from asking a document to support more than it says. These six mistakes help you locate the gap without accusing an issuer or supplier of wrongdoing.
1. Treating the purity percentage as the conclusion
A percentage has meaning within a specific sample, method, calculation, and report. Record it exactly as shown, then connect it to the material identifier, method, test date, and any qualifications. If those pieces cannot be reconciled, keep the result in clarification required. Do not treat it as a summary of tests that are not listed.
2. Assuming purity proves identity
Purity and identity are separate quality questions. The record should show which method addressed each question and how the issuing party interpreted the result. Give the claimed identity, identity evidence, reported purity, and purity evidence separate lines in your notes. This guide does not set universal test specifications because the suitable analytical approach depends on the material and the purpose of the review.
3. Letting the document drift away from the batch
Compare identifiers across the COA, original report, package record, order or transfer record, and any verification page. Copy each one as written. When two records use different formats, ask the issuer to reconcile them in writing. Similar dates or names do not create a reliable match.
4. Reading a result without its method or limits
A method name can sound definitive while leaving its purpose unclear. Connect each listed method to the question it evaluated, the result as reported, and any stated qualification or limit. If an acronym is unfamiliar, request an explanation from the source or route it to a qualified reviewer.
“Please explain what this method evaluated for this material, how the result was interpreted, and what this test does not establish.”
5. Treating a PDF as self-verifying
Formatting does not establish provenance. Note who commissioned the work, who issued the report, whether the file is original or reproduced, and how the original can be verified. Preserve the file and verification route instead of relying on a screenshot. Phrases such as “third-party tested” also need context: document the relationship among the supplier, sample, laboratory, and report rather than inferring independence from a badge.
6. Resolving missing information in your own head
A review can fail after the last page. You notice a gap, find a general explanation elsewhere, and convert a possibility into a conclusion. Keep an open-question ledger instead. State the question, evidence requested, owner, decision affected, and next review date. An unresolved item leaves the review unfinished; it does not prove that the material or document is invalid.
A neutral example of an open-question record| Open question | Evidence requested | Owner | Status | Decision affected |
|---|
| How does the report identifier map to the supplied material? | Original report and written identifier reconciliation | Issuer or qualified reviewer | Waiting | Whether the record can continue to technical review |
|---|
