A missing document and a conflicting document are different problems. A trustworthy review keeps both visible and asks what decision can still be made safely.
Classify the issue
Mark whether the supporting record is absent, cannot be linked to the lot, contradicts another source, or has been superseded. Note which claim it affects. An old assay may be valid for an earlier state but not for the material after processing.
Compare sources without merging them
Keep each party's statement, timestamp, measurement basis and review state. If two masses differ, do not average them without a justified method. If two assays use different bases, do not treat the numbers as directly comparable until a technical reviewer resolves the context.
- Claim under review
- Sources and versions
- Scope of each source
- Reviewer, next evidence and decision deadline
Choose the next action
The response may be to request a source record, reconcile identifiers, re-sample, keep a lot on hold or accept with a documented exception. Record the action owner and date. Closing an exception should link to the evidence that actually resolved it.
What this looks like in practice
A delivery note says lot P-22 while the assay says P-21. The buyer can record the assay as present but unlinked, ask for a sample-to-lot mapping and avoid treating P-22 as tested until that mapping is reviewed.
This workflow makes uncertainty explicit; it does not replace material-specific acceptance criteria or expert judgment.
Primary references
These sources inform the general traceability or due-diligence context. The worked example and operational recommendations above are Atlas editorial guidance.