Laboratory quality system
Scope review, sample records, analytical controls, and release checks connect the submitted sample to its report.
ISO/IEC 17025 is the international standard for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Accreditation to it is granted by an accreditation body after assessment, and covers a defined scope of named methods. Canada Peptide Testing does not hold that accreditation.
Review the accepted scope, sample identifiers, method information and current certificate record together. Our guide to report identifiers explains what the verification link establishes.
If your submission needs an accredited result, because a regulator, a customer specification, or a legal process requires it, say so at scope review. The request will be declined rather than accepted against an expectation it cannot meet.
Each control names the artefact it produces, because a control that leaves no artefact is an intention rather than a control.
A chemist reads every request before a sample is accepted, and settles which method answers the question asked, how much material is required, whether the matrix is workable, and what the result will and will not support. The scope is confirmed before shipping.
Written scope, quantity, turnaround, and price confirmed before anything is mailedA unique sample ID is issued with the accepted request and stays attached through intake, preparation, analysis, scientific review, and release. Custody transfers are recorded against that identifier, so a released certificate traces back to a specific arrival and a specific run through documented records.
One sample ID linking request, intake, status history, review, and certificateQuantitative work is calibrated against reference material of known identity and assigned value. Standard source, assigned value, and expiry govern the working range of a calibration, and the calculation basis (peptide base or gross salt) is agreed at review rather than assumed at reporting time.
Reference material and calculation basis recorded for quantitative workEach analytical run carries its own checks: blanks, replicate standards, resolution, peak symmetry, calibration linearity, and recovery, depending on the technique. These are pass conditions, not diagnostics. A run whose suitability checks did not pass does not produce a reportable result, and the sample is re-prepared or re-run.
Per-technique suitability criteria published on the methods pageScope, analytical data, and the report itself each receive a documented review before a certificate is issued. The reviews are separate because they catch different failures: the wrong test having been run, the right test having produced an invalid run, and a valid result having been written up in a way that misleads.
Documented review at scope, data, and release for every certificateReceived material is stored under conditions appropriate to its form, and remaining sample is retained for a defined period after release so a query can be investigated against the material actually tested rather than against a fresh vial. Retained sample is disposed of on schedule, and the schedule is stated at acceptance.
Defined post-release retention window on remaining sampleOne review at the end catches typographical errors. It does not catch the wrong test having been run correctly, which is the failure mode that costs a client the most, because the report looks entirely valid.
Does the requested method answer the question the client is actually asking, and is the sample suitable for it?
The wrong test being run well. A purity panel ordered when the client wanted strength; a matrix the method cannot handle; a compound with no obtainable reference standard.
Accepted with a written scope, redirected to a different panel, or declined.
Did this run meet its own suitability criteria, and does the data support the number that came out of it?
A valid method producing an invalid run. Failed blanks, drifting standards, poor resolution, integration applied inconsistently, calibration used outside its range.
Result accepted, sample re-prepared, or the run repeated.
Does the certificate state what was measured, on what basis, and what it does not establish?
A correct result written up misleadingly. A missing detection wavelength, an implied pass with no stated specification, a content figure without its calculation basis, a conclusion broader than the scope.
Released and published to the verification registry, or returned for correction.
ALCOA+ is the shorthand regulators use for what a trustworthy record has to be. Naming it is only useful if each letter maps to something concrete, so each one below states the practice it corresponds to here.
Every status change, result entry, and release is recorded against the person who made it and the sample ID it belongs to. There is no shared account through which an action becomes anonymous.
Records are stored as structured data rather than as free-text notes, and a released certificate reproduces the values as recorded rather than as retyped.
Intake, preparation, analysis, review, and release are each timestamped when they happen. A record written after the fact is identifiable as one because its timestamp says so.
The instrument data file is the original record. What appears on a certificate is derived from it, and the derivation is traceable back to the run it came from.
Results are checked against the suitability criteria for the run before they can be released, and a run whose checks did not pass does not produce a reportable number.
Superseded values are retained rather than overwritten, records are kept under one retention schedule, and a released public certificate stays resolvable at its verification URL.
Client records are private unless the client publishes them. A certificate becomes publicly resolvable only when it is released to the public registry, and the registry entry carries the report number, analyte, and dates, plus the agreed client display name and vendor. Private contact details are excluded. Dashboards are authenticated, transport is encrypted, and report access is controlled per account.
Publishing a result is a decision the client makes. Nothing is added to the public registry as a side effect of testing.
Read the privacy policyEvery control on this page makes a result more trustworthy within its scope. None of them makes a purity figure into a content figure, a content figure into a potency figure, one vial into a lot, or any analytical measurement into a statement about clinical safety, efficacy, or regulatory status.
