Custody and lineage workspace
Material custody versus evidence lineage
A browser-based research-use workspace for separating the reported journey of physical material from the reported generation and transformation of digital evidence, then reviewing the explicit bridge between them.
SingularCell Research. Reviewed for primary-source scope, custody and provenance terminology, regulated-context boundaries and unsupported scientific or compliance claims. The workspace records supplied assertions and structural findings; it does not prove identity, custody, authenticity, validity, quality, compliance or acceptance.
How to use this resource
Use synthetic or non-confidential metadata only. Record the exact study version, keep each lane separate, add explicit identifier mappings and bridge evidence, and export findings into the controlled system that owns the real study record. This page compares supplied assertions; it does not prove them.
Entries stay in this browser page and are not submitted to SingularCell. Download or storage is not implied.
Three histories that must not collapse
Use the subject and question to choose the correct lane. Presence of a record in any lane does not establish that its assertions are true.
| Lane | Primary question | Typical records | Does not establish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material custody | Who or what reportedly held, moved, handled, stored, used or disposed of the physical item? | Dispatch, handover, receipt, storage, split, preparation, use and disposition | Identity, condition, uninterrupted custody, suitability or correct handling |
| Digital custody | Who or which system reportedly possessed, accessed, sent, received or disclosed a digital package? | Access, transfer, receipt, disclosure and retention events | How the evidence was generated, authenticity, authorship or correctness |
| Evidence lineage | Which exact entities and activities reportedly produced, transformed, reviewed or corrected the evidence? | Acquisition, raw data, processing, derivation, revision, invalidation and release | Authenticity, complete provenance, scientific validity or acceptance |
| Acquisition bridge | Which named material was reportedly used in which acquisition to generate which raw output? | Material and aliquot IDs, run, position, instrument, raw entity and supporting evidence | That the declared material actually produced the file or was correctly identified |
Draft one bounded custody-lineage comparison
Transfer only approved, non-confidential information into the controlled system that owns the real study record. Blank fields remain unresolved, not assumed.
Name the exact study version, organizations, sites, time range and records included or excluded.
Preserve sponsor, laboratory, container, aliquot and position IDs with explicit mapping evidence and unresolved conflicts.
Record dispatch, handover, receipt, acknowledgement, handling, storage, use and disposition as separate supplied assertions.
Link one exact material or aliquot to one exact acquisition activity and raw output with source, evidence and limitations.
List raw, processed, result and report versions plus typed use, generation, derivation, revision and invalidation assertions.
Record missing, inaccessible, redacted, conflicting and not-assessed states without inferring a cause or verdict.
Bind a named review to exact versions, intended use, limitations, unresolved issues and the decision scope.
Cross-lane reconciliation checklist
A checked item means the named record exists in the stated scope. It does not prove truth, identity, authenticity, adequacy or scientific acceptance.
Finding states without false assurance
Use precise findings so a structural comparison cannot silently become a claim about reality, misconduct or scientific acceptance.
| Finding | Exact meaning | Does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| TRANSFER_DISPATCH_UNACKNOWLEDGED | A dispatch assertion exists but recipient acknowledgement was not supplied in scope | That the transfer failed or the material was lost |
| SPONSOR_LAB_ID_MAPPING_CONFLICTING | Two supplied identifier-mapping assertions disagree | Which mapping is correct or that misidentification occurred |
| ACQUISITION_MATERIAL_LINK_MISSING | No explicit material-to-acquisition assertion was found in scope | That the acquisition used the wrong material |
| INSTRUMENT_OR_ACQUISITION_SOFTWARE_VERSION_MISSING | A required version field was not supplied for the named acquisition | That the acquisition or result is invalid |
| HASH_MATCH_FOR_COMPARED_BYTES | The compared bytes produced the supplied digest under the named algorithm | Authenticity, authorship, custody, originality or scientific correctness |
| SEQUENCE_CONSISTENT | Recorded event times pass the named ordering checks within stated timezone limits | Uninterrupted custody, truth or correct handling |
| CONFLICT_UNRESOLVED | Supplied assertions conflict and no bounded human disposition is recorded | Error, fraud, misconduct or failed science |
| HUMAN_REVIEWED_FOR_DEFINED_SCOPE | A named reviewer recorded a decision for an exact version and intended use | Universal approval, validation, compliance or truth |
Synthetic two-lane comparison object
This fictional example contains a recorded material-to-raw-data bridge plus two deliberately unresolved gaps: missing receipt acknowledgement and missing instrument configuration version.
{
"resource_type": "custody_lineage_comparison",
"schema_version": "0.1.0",
"fixture_status": "SYNTHETIC_DEMONSTRATION_ONLY",
"study": {"id": "STUDY-SYN-019", "version": "1.0"},
"material_entities": [
{"id": "MAT-SYN-001", "identity_status": "DECLARED"},
{"id": "ALQ-SYN-A1", "derived_from_material": "MAT-SYN-001", "relation_status": "DECLARED"}
],
"material_custody_events": [
{"id": "CUST-SYN-001", "type": "dispatch", "material_id": "MAT-SYN-001", "status": "DECLARED"},
{"id": "CUST-SYN-002", "type": "receipt", "material_id": "MAT-SYN-001", "recipient_acknowledgement": null, "status": "DECLARED"}
],
"acquisition_bridge": {
"id": "BRIDGE-SYN-001",
"material_id": "ALQ-SYN-A1",
"acquisition_activity_id": "RUN-SYN-01",
"generated_raw_entity_id": "RAW-SYN-01",
"status": "EVIDENCE_REFERENCED"
},
"lineage": [
{"entity_id": "RAW-SYN-01", "was_generated_by": "RUN-SYN-01", "instrument_configuration_version": null},
{"entity_id": "PROC-SYN-01", "was_derived_from": "RAW-SYN-01", "pipeline_version": "0.1-synthetic"}
],
"findings": [
{"code": "TRANSFER_DISPATCH_UNACKNOWLEDGED", "severity": "REVIEW_REQUIRED", "inference": "NONE"},
{"code": "INSTRUMENT_OR_ACQUISITION_SOFTWARE_VERSION_MISSING", "severity": "REVIEW_REQUIRED", "inference": "NONE"}
]
}Boundary: This synthetic object demonstrates record structure only. It does not prove identity, condition, uninterrupted custody, authenticity, authorship, completeness, scientific validity, laboratory quality, compliance, equivalence or result acceptance.
Maintain separate material-custody and evidence-lineage histories, connect an exact material or aliquot to an acquisition and raw output through an evidence-bearing assertion, and route every gap or conflict to a named human reviewer.
Keep the physical and digital histories separate
Material custody asks who or what reportedly possessed, transferred, received, handled, stored, used or disposed of a named physical item, container or aliquot. Evidence lineage asks which exact digital entity versions were reportedly used and generated by acquisition, processing, review or correction activities, with which agents, tools and configurations.
The two histories can support the same study without proving each other. A complete-looking custody timeline cannot show which physical item generated a file unless an explicit link exists. A complete-looking lineage graph cannot show how its input material moved or was handled before acquisition. Digital file custody, when useful, belongs in a separate optional lane.
- Exact study and comparison-scope versions
- Material, container and aliquot identifiers
- Physical handoff, receipt, handling and disposition events
- Digital entities, activities, agents and exact versions
- Optional digital possession or transfer events kept separate
Make the material-to-data bridge explicit
The critical connection is an acquisition bridge assertion: an exact material, container or aliquot was reportedly used by an identified acquisition activity that reportedly generated an exact raw digital output. The bridge should carry study and run versions, sponsor and laboratory IDs, position, method, instrument, software, raw-entity version, source, evidence references, limitations and review state.
Coincident names or timestamps are not enough. An identifier match does not establish physical or biological identity, and a timestamp correlation does not establish that a material produced a file. SingularCell may report that an evidence-referenced bridge assertion exists; only a scoped human review can decide whether the supplied evidence is adequate for an intended use.
- Sponsor and laboratory identifiers preserved with an explicit mapping
- Acquisition run, method, instrument and software versions
- Exact raw or native entity ID and version
- Assertion source, time and supporting evidence references
- Limitations and reviewer disposition kept visible
Report structural gaps without inventing causes
Deterministic software can validate fields, compare explicit identifier mappings, check recorded event order, traverse typed relationships, compare exact bytes with a supplied digest and find missing or conflicting links. Its output must state only the property checked, such as sequence consistent, bridge missing or hash match for compared bytes.
A gap is a request for review, not a verdict. Missing acknowledgement does not prove a failed transfer; conflicting identifiers do not establish which record is correct; a hash match does not prove authenticity; and a complete graph does not prove scientific validity. Missing, inaccessible, redacted, conflicting and not assessed must remain different states.
- Every finding names the exact object, field and evidence scope
- Event-order results retain timezone and source limitations
- Hashes are limited to the exact bytes and algorithm compared
- Corrections preserve predecessors and warn dependent objects
- Scientific and release decisions remain named human records
Primary sources
- NIST — Research Data Framework, Version 2.0 ↗National Institute of Standards and Technology · Non-prescriptive research-data concepts for custody, provenance, versions, derivatives, timestamps, responsible parties, instruments, software and capture methods.
- NIST OSAC — Chain of Custody glossary ↗National Institute of Standards and Technology · A forensic-vocabulary definition of chain of custody as a chronological record of transfer, handling and storage through return or disposal.
- ISO — ISO 23494-1:2026 public preview ↗International Organization for Standardization · Biotechnology provenance concepts spanning physical and digital objects, biological-material handling, analytical generation and downstream processing.
- W3C — PROV Data Model ↗World Wide Web Consortium · Entities, activities, agents, usage, generation, derivation, revision, invalidation, attribution and association for explicit lineage assertions.
- OECD — Management, characterisation and use of test items in GLP studies ↗Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · Within OECD GLP scope, bounded examples for transport, receipt, identification, labelling, sampling, handling, storage, characterisation, archiving and disposal.
- eCFR — 21 CFR 58.130 ↗United States Electronic Code of Federal Regulations · Within FDA nonclinical GLP scope, specimen identification and preservation of original entries, reasons, dates and responsible people when data change.
- NIST — Common provenance for life-science data and specimens ↗National Institute of Standards and Technology · Research and standardization history for cross-organizational links among specimens, analytical procedures and downstream data processing.
- NATA — ISO 20387 assessment worksheet ↗National Association of Testing Authorities Australia · Within its biobanking assessment context, separate physical transfer and transport records from data-transfer integrity and link material to associated data.
Limitations
- This research-use workspace records and compares supplied assertions. It does not independently observe physical events or establish that an assertion, identifier, signature, acknowledgement or relationship is true.
- A complete-looking custody timeline does not prove identity, condition, correct handling, absence of tampering or contamination, uninterrupted custody, suitability or equivalence.
- A complete-looking lineage graph or W3C PROV structure does not prove authenticity, authorship, originality, completeness, correctness or scientific validity.
- A digest result is limited to the exact bytes, algorithm and comparison performed and does not prove source authenticity, custody, authorship or scientific correctness.
- ISO, NIST, W3C, OECD, FDA and NATA sources are bounded to their stated scopes and do not certify SingularCell, a laboratory, a material, a method, a study or a result.
- Only accountable qualified people can determine evidence adequacy, scientific interpretation, laboratory suitability, legal or regulatory applicability, compliance and result acceptance.
- Do not enter confidential, personal, patient, proprietary, regulated or customer study information into this public browser page.