An unclear certificate often needs a specific question rather than a new interpretation from the reader. The most useful request identifies the exact document, describes the ambiguity and asks for the missing definition or evidence. This gives the laboratory a clear issue to investigate without suggesting a result it is expected to produce.
Make the report and field easy to locate
Include the issuing laboratory, full report identifier, revision, sample identifier and relevant page or row. Attach the complete document through the laboratory’s appropriate channel when permitted, rather than send only a cropped result.
For an original example: “In report R-204, revision 1, sample S-51, the assay row on page 2 lists 9.8 without a unit. Please confirm the unit and whether the value is per vial or on another sample basis.”
This request identifies both the location and the missing information. It does not assume the value is incorrect or ask the laboratory to approve a conclusion that depends on an unstated unit.
If several samples share a report, name the exact sample. If two versions conflict, include both identifiers and the fields that differ.
Ask for the missing link in the reasoning
| Ambiguity | Question to ask |
|---|---|
| A percentage without a basis | Does this represent peak area, mass fraction or another quantity? |
| A passing label | Which requirement and decision rule support this conclusion? |
| Different lot identifiers | What record connects the submitted lot to the laboratory sample? |
| A changed result | Was the revision due to recalculation, correction or new analysis? |
Choose the question that resolves the actual gap. A request for every raw file may be unnecessary when the issue is a missing unit, while a generic assurance may be insufficient when the concern involves a calculation.
WHO’s laboratory guidance connects technical records with sample information, procedures, calculations and results. Those distinct records provide useful categories for specifying the evidence needed, within that guidance’s pharmaceutical-laboratory context.WHO — Good practices for pharmaceutical quality control laboratories, 2024 (opens in a new tab)
Ask for the relevant calculation basis or record reference when needed. Avoid proposing an undocumented correction and asking the laboratory merely to agree with it.
Separate observations from hypotheses
“The report states analysis on 5–6 September and approval on 7 September” is an observation. “The test must have used a rapid method” is a hypothesis. A clarification should ask how the stated timeline relates to the method rather than present the hypothesis as fact.
This is a general question format; the dates alone do not establish an error or identify the testing procedure. If a method normally involves a specified observation period, request the actual method version and timing explanation.
Keep the language factual when discrepancies are concerning. A neutral request makes it easier to distinguish a typographical correction, a misunderstanding and a substantive unresolved problem.
Respect confidentiality boundaries. The submitting customer may need to authorise disclosure, and an inability to release information should remain an access limitation rather than be interpreted as a scientific answer.
Evaluate whether the response resolves the question
A reply should address the specific uncertainty. “The sample passed” does not resolve an unexplained unit, and “the report is genuine” does not reconcile contradictory quantities.
If the reply changes an issued result or essential description, ask which authorised report version should now be used. Keep the original question, response and corrected document connected so another reader can reconstruct the resolution.
If the response resolves only part of the issue, record that partial outcome. Do not treat silence on another point as agreement with the preferred interpretation.
Sources and further detail
- WHO — Good practices for pharmaceutical quality control laboratories, 2024 (opens in a new tab)
TRS 1052 Annex 4, section 6.4 read for the categories of technical records. Request examples are original and are not messages sent to any laboratory.
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.