This system map belongs to the lab result correction histories guide, which covers what to inventory before a LIMS replacement. Use it when a laboratory director says "it's all in the LIMS" and you need to know whether one correction can be followed from raw file to closed CAPA.
Four systems behind one corrected result
No single system holds a correction. The measurement, the reported value, the investigation and the client's copy each live somewhere different.
| System | Record it holds | Primary linking key | Typical owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instrument data system | Raw data file, run sequence, calibration and QC results, method file | Run or batch ID | Laboratory operations or department lead |
| LIMS | Results, audit trail, reviewer comments, original and amended reports | Sample ID; report number with suffix | Laboratory director, with the LIMS administrator |
| Quality and document control system | Nonconformance, CAPA, SOP revisions, interface validation | Nonconformance or CAPA number | Quality manager |
| Email and client portal | Client inquiries and the client's copy of each report version | Report number, sometimes sample ID | Client services |
Configuration is a fifth, hidden source. Unit settings, method versions and interface mappings often sit in LIMS or instrument configuration rather than in the result record, and configuration is usually the first thing replaced at an upgrade.
Keys by system: where each identifier appears
Read across a row to see where a key is primary, where it is cited and where it is missing.
| Key | Instrument data system | LIMS | Quality system | Email and portal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample ID | In the sequence or run file | Primary key | Cited on the nonconformance | Sometimes quoted by the client |
| Run or batch ID | Primary key | Linked to each result | Cited when a batch is investigated | Rarely |
| Units and method version | In the raw and method files | Field settings that can change at upgrade | SOP revision history | Not present |
| Report number and suffix | Not present | Report history | Referenced on the CAPA | The client's copy of each version |
| Nonconformance or CAPA number | Not present | Sometimes a linked field | Primary key | Not present |
| Reviewer and approver | Sometimes on run review | Audit trail and electronic signatures | On the nonconformance and SOP approvals | Not present |
Two regulatory points explain why some of these keys survive. FDA's Part 11 rule, which applies to many labs serving FDA-regulated work, calls for time-stamped audit trails in which changes do not obscure earlier entries, kept as long as the records themselves; that is why an old value can still be found next to the new one. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 clause 7.8.8, as NIST's crosswalk summarizes it, has amendments issued as a further document with an amendment statement, which is why a suffix like "-A1" exists to join on. Whether a given LIMS or instrument system exports trails, comments and report versions in usable form depends on the product, version and contract, and the lab should confirm it with its vendors.
One fully joined correction (Illustrative)
A different correction at the fictional 280-person environmental laboratory from the worked copper unit case: a nitrate batch processed against last year's calibration curve because a method update was approved but not loaded on one instrument. Values are invented.
| Record | System | Key value (Illustrative) | Joined to |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrate batch run on the old curve | Instrument data system | Run R-3318, method v4 instead of v5 | Sample S-71204 via the sequence file |
| Result posted from the batch | LIMS | Sample S-71204 | Run R-3318 |
| Report 6120 issued | LIMS report history | Report 6120 | Sample S-71204 |
| Method update approved weeks earlier | Document control | SOP rev 5, effective date | Run R-3318 by method version |
| Second-person review flags the curve date | LIMS | Comment on S-71204 | Run R-3318 by comparison |
| Investigation of every batch on that instrument | Quality system | NC-0533, lists 14 affected samples | S-71204 by free-text citation |
| Reissued report with corrected value | LIMS report history | Report 6120-A1 | Report 6120 by suffix; NC-0533 by reference |
| Instrument method deployment check added | Quality system | CAPA-0241 | NC-0533 |
Every join is explicit except one: the investigation cites the sample only in free text. That is common, and worth naming in an introduction as an open question. Retention adds a time limit: for clinical work, CLIA requires original, preliminary and corrected reports to be kept or retrievable for at least two years after reporting, ten for pathology, and a lab that keeps only the minimum may already have lost its oldest report versions.
Where the joins break, and what to ask
Ask the laboratory director, quality manager and LIMS administrator these questions, and note the answers as metadata only:
- Are raw instrument files kept with the run ID, and are they in scope for any migration?
- Do historical results carry the unit and method version that applied at the time, or only today's settings?
- Are amended reports issued with a suffix that references the original?
- Does the nonconformance number get written back to the sample record in the LIMS?
- Where do client inquiries about results live: the portal, a shared mailbox or personal inboxes?
- When does access to the legacy LIMS or instrument data system end?
Answers like "only current settings migrate" or "CAPAs are in a separate tool" do not rule a lab out. They tell SourceX which joins hold and which need rebuilding. Lab businesses that tend to fit are described under testing laboratory data licensing, and investor-backed groups under testing, inspection and certification private equity. A lab closing a site faces the same map on a shorter clock, as the biotech wind-down guide explains.
From the map to a referral
A completed map supplies most of a referral: the systems, the years, the keys that hold, the one that does not, and who owns each. The referral brief template turns that into a one-page note. If the lab asks why it would work with SourceX rather than a buyer directly, selling data directly or through an intermediary sets out the trade-offs.
The lab needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions. What stays unknown until SourceX reviews it: which record classes the lab may license given client ownership of results, what must be removed or de-identified, SourceX's current data needs and any offer.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
If the map shows that sample, run, report and CAPA keys still join and the legacy LIMS has an access end date, register as a partner, check the lab against who qualifies and read the program terms before cutover.