Eight pucks. One polish step. One log.
When the work repeats, batches handle the fan-out. Log a step once on the batch and the entry copies into every sample's journal, with full parameters and traceability. Each sample stays first-class for reports and atlas references.
Repetitive prep, handled like a metallographer would.
Generic ELNs treat every sample as its own form. The result: log the polish step on sample S-2918, then again on S-2919, then S-2920, copying parameters seven times, hoping you didn't mistype. Materials Prep models the way the work actually runs, in groups, when it runs in groups.
Log once, fan out to every sample
When a lot of samples runs through the same prep step together, log it on the batch. The entry copies into every sample's journal automatically, with the same parameters, the same timestamp, the same operator. Eight pucks, one log.
Samples stay first-class
A batch is a grouping, not a wrapper. Each sample in the batch keeps its own journal, its own etch results, its own micrographs, its own atlas references. Reports cite the sample, not the batch.
Step out of the batch when needed
If one sample in a batch gets a different etch (or skips a step entirely), log that step on the sample directly. The batch handles the shared work; the per-sample work is still per-sample.
Catches the mistake every QA lab makes
When eight samples are running together, the failure mode is logging the polish step on one of them and forgetting the other seven. Batch logging eliminates the manual fan-out, which eliminates the typo.
Equipment, consumables, and operator captured once
The polisher used, the pad on the wheel, the diamond suspension lot, the technician at the bench, all attach to the batch step and propagate to every sample. Traceability is the same as a per-sample log without the per-sample data entry.
Audit log treats every fan-out as one event
A batch step is one row in the audit log with the affected samples listed, not eight rows. The audit story is honest about what happened: one operator action, eight samples affected.
Common questions about batches.
- When should I use a batch vs. log per sample?
- Use a batch when more than one sample will receive the same prep step under the same parameters. Mounting six pucks at once. Polishing a forging-lot run together. Etching a stack of QA pucks. Log per sample when the work is unique to that sample (a one-off failure analysis specimen, a sample that needs a different etch).
- Can a sample belong to more than one batch over its life?
- Yes. A sample can pass through several batches over its prep journey. The puck might be polished in one batch and etched in another. Each batch contributes its own steps to the sample's journal.
- What if one sample in a batch needs a different parameter?
- Either step out of the batch for that sample (log the step directly on the sample), or split the batch and create a new batch for the variant group. Both paths are legible in the journal afterwards.
- Can I add a sample to a batch that's already in progress?
- Yes, with a caveat: prior steps on the batch don't backfill into the late-arriving sample's journal. The new sample only inherits batch steps from the moment it joins. This matches how it'd work physically — a puck added halfway through doesn't retroactively appear in the earlier polishing pass.
- How does batch logging interact with recipes?
- Apply a recipe to a batch and the recipe ladder pre-fills as the next steps to log. Each step the operator confirms goes into every sample's journal. The recipe attempt is recorded once at the batch level and per sample for analytics.