Choose laboratory inventory software by tracing an identified sample or reagent to its container, recorded location and associated work. Keep stock identity, physical placement and permission to use material as separate questions. The useful test is whether another authorised person can reconstruct that relationship when a container moves or information is incomplete.
Start with a small, recognisable research workflow. Identify the records your laboratory needs for a sample, a reagent and an experiment, then ask who maintains each one. This avoids a common selection mistake: accepting a searchable list of materials as evidence that quantities, locations and controlled decisions will remain coherent.
eLabFTW 6.0 provides documented examples of inventory containers, laboratory records and links between entries. The original worksheet below uses those building blocks for a proposed demonstration. Ask the laboratory owner to define the required record content and review responsibilities before configuring the test copy.
How should you separate materials, containers and locations?
eLabFTW distinguishes Experiment records from Resource records. Resources represent things present in the laboratory, including physical materials and equipment. In the introductory documentation, those concepts have different purposes. Decide how your proposed record design will represent a particular sample, a reagent description and the work that uses them.
eLabFTW 6.0 supports Inventory Locations with Containers stored within them. Inventory root elements cannot hold Containers directly; their children can. Read the inventory guide alongside a sketch of the physical location structure you want to represent. A building, room and storage position should have unambiguous names in that sketch.
A Container can be added from an Experiment or Resource entry. The Container dialogue supports a quantity, unit and optional multiplier. Ask the demonstrator to show what each value means in your example. A count of vessels, a quantity per vessel and an aggregate amount are different descriptions; write the intended meaning beside the field before comparing totals.
Choose identifiers that allow a reviewer to distinguish similar materials and separate containers. If lot, batch or preparation identity matters to the proposed workflow, include it as a specific requirement and ask where it will be retained. Do the same for storage conditions and expiry information without assuming that a location label enforces those conditions.
How do you connect inventory to experimental work?
eLabFTW can link an Experiment or Resource to another Experiment or Resource. The experiment guide describes that linking capability. Use it to demonstrate the relationships your team needs to follow, then ask the reviewer to explain what each link means. A link labelled as reference material is different from a record of material actually consumed.
For the proposed design, define the event that changes a recorded quantity. It may require a specific user action or another system. Ask the demonstrator to show the actual behaviour in the test copy. Retain the starting quantity, intended event and resulting value so that the relationship between the work record and the stock record can be examined.
Treat missing information as an exception with an owner. If an experiment refers to a reagent whose container identity is unclear, the reviewer should have a defined route to resolve the ambiguity. The demonstration should preserve the question instead of creating a new duplicate material merely to make the link look complete.
Original sample-to-reagent trace worksheet
This hypothetical research-laboratory exercise uses sample SAMPLE-A, reagent RESOURCE-R, container CONTAINER-R and experiment EXPERIMENT-A. The identifiers and events are fictional. It is a record-handling test using non-sensitive test data, with no scientific protocol or instruction about using the materials.
| Record or decision | Information the worksheet requests | Demonstration evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Sample identity | Chosen identifier and responsible owner | Reviewer can distinguish SAMPLE-A from similar entries |
| Reagent identity | Resource reference and required lot information | Reviewer can locate the intended material definition |
| Container | Container reference, quantity and unit meaning | Displayed values match the agreed representation |
| Physical location | Named position and update responsibility | Reviewer can follow the recorded placement |
| Experimental relationship | Linked sample and reagent references | Reviewer explains what each link represents |
| Use decision | Proposed status, decision-maker and evidence | Demonstrator shows whether the rule is recorded or enforced |
| Exception | Missing detail, assigned owner and next step | Incomplete work remains distinguishable from completed work |
Complete the worksheet before entering data. Ask the laboratory owner which fields are necessary for this workflow and which belong elsewhere. Remove unnecessary fields rather than creating a cumbersome form whose important identifiers disappear among rarely used details. Keep required information visible at the moment someone must make a decision.
Establish the baseline. Create the proposed sample, reagent and experiment entries in the test copy. Add the container and record its intended location. Have a second person follow the identifiers from the work record to the reagent and container. Note every point where the reviewer needs an explanation that the records themselves do not provide.
Move the container. In the exercise, change the intended physical position of CONTAINER-R and follow the proposed update procedure. Ask the second reviewer to identify its current recorded location. If the application retains a movement history, inspect it; if it does not, record that gap against your requirement rather than inferring an audit trail from the current location alone.
Introduce incomplete identity. Create a test entry with a missing piece of the laboratory’s required identifier. Ask how the responsible person marks and resolves it. The exercise should show whether the record remains visibly incomplete, who owns the correction and how a later reviewer recognises the resolved version.
Test a stock decision. Give RESOURCE-R a proposed hold status in the worksheet and ask what the configured system actually does. Can users merely see a label, or does a demonstrated control restrict a particular action? Record the distinction. Keep any decision about material use with the laboratory’s authorised process while evaluating the software representation.
Who should be able to see and change these records?
Experiments and Resources are restricted to a team by default. The experiment guide warns that permissions are additive on the base permission. Build a permission test around the actual roles in your proposed setup. Begin with the intended base access, then inspect the effect of additional team, group or user permissions.
Have one authorised editor and one deliberately restricted test user attempt the relevant actions. Inspect both visibility and write access. Capture the role context with the result; a screenshot from an administrator account cannot establish what a routine laboratory user can change or view.
Only the user who locked an experiment or an Admin can unlock it. Use that documented rule to discuss the handover around a locked work record. Ask who would request a correction, who can perform the necessary action and how the laboratory intends to retain the reason. Keep record locking separate from a validated approval or release workflow.
How can an export support the reconciliation discussion?
The Inventory export produces a CSV list of containers stored by the current team. Use an export as one view to compare with the worksheet. Check the team context, extraction time and expected container set before interpreting a missing row. The export’s scope matters as much as whether the file opens.
For the moved-container exercise, compare the final recorded location and quantity with the agreed test inputs. Give a named reviewer each discrepancy and retain its resolution. This produces a concrete acceptance record for inventory handling without treating a downloadable file as proof of the entire laboratory control process.
Keep generic stock selection in inventory control and integration context in business systems. To discuss the laboratory record requirements, get started with the completed trace worksheet, the permission results and the stock decisions the proposed configuration still needs to demonstrate.
By Spout Team. AI-assisted drafting by Codex using the linked primary documentation.