Test reports and calibration certificates, drafted from your bench data.

Today a technician finishes the work, and someone turns the worksheet into a report. They copy readings into the template, check units and rounding, fill in the customer and item details from the work order, and pass it to review.

In the proof of concept, AI reads the same worksheet and work order and drafts the report or certificate in your template. Nothing is issued. The draft goes on a sheet your reviewer works from, next to the report your lab sent.

A calibration certificate carries more than readings. ISO/IEC 17025 asks for the measurement uncertainty in the unit of the measurand or as a relative value, the environmental conditions that affect the result, a traceability statement, and the results before and after any adjustment or repair. That last one is where drafts slip: an as-found reading on the as-left line hides an instrument that arrived out of tolerance. And unless the customer agreed to one, a certificate can't recommend a calibration interval, so a next-due field your template fills by habit has to stay blank.

Test reports change shape by method. A concrete cylinder report under ASTM C39 gives the age at test, the maximum load, the strength to the nearest 10 psi, the fracture type from the method's sketches and any defects, often for a set of three broken at 28 days. A tensile report under ASTM E8/E8M carries yield strength and how it was found, tensile strength, elongation and reduction of area. The draft must follow the method's rounding, and the specimen IDs must match the customer's exactly, because that is how they tie a result to a pour or a heat.

Some lines exist only because the standard requires them, and they are easy to drop. Information the customer supplied, such as a sampling date, has to be marked as theirs. Results from an outside lab have to be identified. If the report carries your accreditation body's symbol, tests outside your scope have to be marked, usually with a note that the lab is not accredited for the tests marked. Your accreditation body's own rules decide the wording, and none of this is accreditation advice.

Statements of conformity are where the AI stops. A pass or fail rests on a decision rule, such as simple acceptance or a guard band, agreed with the customer unless the specification sets one, and only authorized staff may give opinions and interpretations. So the AI never decides a pass or fail and never calculates an uncertainty. Where your worksheet already states them, the draft carries them across as written and marks them for review. Otherwise the field stays empty.

Your reviewer will watch the quiet places: the method and its revision year, significant figures, serial numbers, receipt and test dates, and whether a customer with its own format got it. Include an amended report or two. They show the kind of mistake that costs an amendment once a report is out.

If your reviewer says yes, the same job runs on new reports and certificates for about 30 days.

Each draft waits for your review and your signatory before it is issued, like any report your lab writes by hand, and the side-by-side keeps going so the live run is judged the same way.

No second job is added in those 30 days.