Third-party testing produces more than a certificate. There can be a request, shipment record, laboratory receipt, sample registration, analytical records and an issued report. A useful document trail connects those stages to the same material and clearly separates what was requested from what was received, measured and reported.
Give each record a defined role
| Record | What it can establish |
|---|---|
| Test request | The work and sample description submitted for agreement |
| Shipment record | A documented movement or delivery event |
| Laboratory receipt | The material and condition recorded on arrival |
| Analytical record | The work performed on the registered sample |
| Issued report | The authorised results communicated by the issuer |
A courier delivery notice does not show which tests were performed. A quotation describes proposed work, not completed analysis. An invoice can show a commercial transaction without disclosing the result.
The distinction is especially useful when several records arrive at different times. A sample may have been delivered while testing remains pending, or testing may be complete while the authorised report has not yet been released.
Use a description that matches the stage actually supported. This avoids calling a sample “third-party tested” solely because a shipment was sent to a laboratory.
Connect the sample description across stages
WHO’s 2024 guidance for pharmaceutical quality-control laboratories describes incoming-sample documentation, unique registration and checks of received labelling against the test request. These are medicine-laboratory practices used here to illustrate a coherent sample-to-record connection.WHO — Good practices for pharmaceutical quality control laboratories, 2024 (opens in a new tab)
The supplier’s lot identifier and the laboratory’s sample identifier may differ. A good trail explains their relationship; it does not require the same code to appear in every system.
For an original example, a request names lot L-72, the laboratory assigns sample S-118 and the issued report refers to S-118. The link from L-72 to S-118 is essential if the report is later used to discuss that lot.
If a received label differs from the request, preserve the discrepancy and its resolution. Silently choosing whichever identifier matches a product listing would undermine the trail.
Distinguish agreed work from performed work
WHO’s technical-record section describes recording the sample, procedure, calculations and test results. It also addresses identification of work performed by another laboratory. A final summary should retain those distinctions where they affect interpretation.WHO — Good practices for pharmaceutical quality control laboratories, 2024 (opens in a new tab)
A request for identity and content testing does not establish that both were completed. Read the issued results and any explanation of omitted, unsuitable or subcontracted work.
Similarly, a supplier’s description of the requested method is not evidence that the laboratory used it unchanged. If the report identifies a different method, clarify the difference through the agreed-work and analytical records.
This task concerns the documentary connection, not revalidating the entire analytical method. Detailed performance questions can be pursued separately once it is clear which method and sample the result actually concerns.
Keep remaining gaps in the final summary
An intact trail can establish that a named sample was submitted, received and reported. It does not automatically establish how representative that sample was of every vial the supplier holds.
If the selection record is absent, say that selection is not documented in the available material. If a report has been revised, connect the current version to the earlier record rather than leaving two conflicting conclusions side by side.
A compact evidence index can list each document, its identifier, date and role, with unresolved links marked explicitly. The aim is a reader being able to follow the result back to the submission without relying on an unsupported narrative.
Sources and further detail
- WHO — Good practices for pharmaceutical quality control laboratories, 2024 (opens in a new tab)
TRS 1052 Annex 4, sections 6.2, 6.4 and paragraph 6.47 read in the official 88-page document. Short documentary principles only; not a claim that Novum follows a WHO-approved programme.
Sources checked 19 September 2026. Worked examples are illustrative unless a supplied report is explicitly identified. This article has not undergone independent scientific peer review.