Group the samples that belong together. Compare them side by side.
When a single job spans many samples, a study ties them into one investigation. Compare prep, hardness, and microstructure across the whole study, and generate a report that cites the underlying journal entries directly.
Many samples, one investigation, one report.
Failure analyses, qualifications, and R&D investigations almost always span more than one sample. Studies group the samples without flattening them, so the journal-level detail is still there when an auditor or a customer asks.
A study groups samples without absorbing them
Add samples to a study to compare across them. Each sample keeps its own journal, recipes, and atlas references. The study is a lens on the sample data, not a copy of it.
Side-by-side comparison
Line up prep ladders, hardness readings, and micrographs across every sample in the study. Differences in process and outcome show up next to each other rather than in separate documents you have to flip between.
Reports cite the journal directly
Generate a report off the study and it pulls from the underlying sample journals: actual prep parameters, actual etchant lots, actual micrographs. The report is a view of the data the bench logged, not a hand-typed summary.
Built for FA, qualification, and R&D
A failure investigation cuts six samples from one bracket and needs a single deliverable. A qualification compares twenty heats. An R&D study sweeps temper conditions across a series. Studies fit all three because they don't pre-judge the structure.
Visibility scope per study
Studies inherit the visibility model used elsewhere: private, lab, or org. A confidential failure investigation stays scoped to the working team; a qualification visible to the whole org is one click.
Audit log for every change
Adding a sample, changing a finding, generating a report — each action is in the audit log with the actor, the IP, and the before/after snapshot. ISO 17025 traceability, AS9100 process audits, and customer-facing reviews can pull a defensible record.
Common questions about studies.
- What's a study, exactly?
- A grouping of samples for cross-comparison. The study itself has a title, a description, an owner, and a visibility scope. The samples in it keep their own journals; the study just provides the comparison surface and the report-generation entry point.
- Can a sample belong to more than one study?
- Yes. The same sample can appear in a failure analysis study and an alloy-qualification study and a thesis-figure-pool study, with no copying.
- What kinds of comparisons are supported?
- Prep ladder differences, hardness readings, atlas references, etchant choices, and journal entries across all samples in the study. Statistical analysis is not built today; the comparison is descriptive and defensible, not inferential.
- Are reports customizable?
- Reports include the prep journal, hardness, etchant choices, and selected micrographs from each sample, with a study-level narrative. Custom report templates per organization are on the roadmap. The current report is suitable for internal review and most QA contexts; customer-branded report templates are not the target use case.
- Can I generate a report off a single sample without a study?
- Yes. Reports are first-class on individual samples too. Studies are for cross-sample comparison; single-sample reports cover one specimen end to end.
Pairs with atlas, recipes, and the audit log that backs every report.