A visible change can be an important research observation even when its cause is unknown. The record is most useful when it describes what was actually seen and preserves enough context for a later investigation.
Write the observation before the explanation
The University of South Alabama’s laboratory-notebook guidance explicitly includes qualitative observations such as a solution becoming cloudy or changing colour. It treats these observations as part of the experimental record alongside numerical data.University of South Alabama — Laboratory Notebooks: Best Principles and Best Standards (opens in a new tab)
“Fine white material visible near the base” is an observation. “The peptide degraded” is an explanation that requires supporting evidence. Writing the second in place of the first removes the detail that another investigator needs.
Use descriptions tied to the sample and the inspection rather than terms such as bad, normal or contaminated without a defined basis. If an established inspection method uses specific categories, identify that method.
An unexpected appearance does not need an immediate mechanistic name to deserve recording. Uncertainty about its cause is a reason to preserve the observation carefully.
Keep the conditions of viewing visible
Record when the observation was made, who made it and which physical sample was inspected. Include relevant viewing conditions, such as whether the sample was examined through its container and whether a photograph was taken.
| Record element | Example | Limit retained |
|---|---|---|
| Appearance | Small pale particles visible near the bottom | Composition not identified |
| Comparison | Not visible in the earlier recorded inspection | Exact onset unknown |
| Image | Photo IMG-24 linked to sample S31 | Image supports appearance, not chemical identity |
The container and background can influence how an image looks. If photographs are compared, preserve the originals and explain relevant changes in lighting or framing rather than treating every visual difference as a sample change.
A photograph without a sample link can be difficult to interpret later. Keep the file associated with the observation entry instead of relying on a camera filename to carry the entire context.
Distinguish a first observation from a known onset
“First noticed at 14:10” does not mean “started at 14:10”. A prior inspection and the later observation may bound the time when a visible difference developed, but only if the earlier inspection could have detected it.
Likewise, “not observed” is more precise than “absent” when the viewing conditions or sample access were limited. The record should reflect the sensitivity of the observation rather than imply an exhaustive examination.
If an action occurs between observations, identify it. A later clear appearance after processing is a new observation of a changed sample history, not a reason to delete the earlier description.
Link investigation without rewriting the original
A later analytical result may support or challenge an initial explanation. Add that result and its interpretation as linked evidence while retaining the original observation in its original context.
For example, an investigator may initially suspect precipitation but later find that the visible material has a different origin. The factual description remains useful even when the hypothesis changes.
If no follow-up analysis is available, leave the cause unresolved. A concise uncertainty statement is more informative than an unsupported diagnosis chosen to close the record.
This approach produces an observation that another person can assess: the sample, the visible feature, the inspection conditions, the comparison and the documentary route to any subsequent investigation.
Sources and further detail
- University of South Alabama — Laboratory Notebooks: Best Principles and Best Standards (opens in a new tab)
June 2016 institutional guidance checked for qualitative observations and links to externally stored images. No institutional retention rule or chemical diagnosis is transferred to Novum.
Sources checked 20 September 2026. Worked records are original hypothetical examples, not Novum operating procedures or actual customer events. This article has not undergone independent scientific peer review.