From scattered results
to reviewable decisions.
See how a configured workflow brings together approved sources, repeatable calculations and accountable scientific review. These workflows are separate from the sector overview.
Three product workflowsBundled reference valuesScientific sources linked
Follow three product workflows. Scroll to watch each request move from approved sources to a Matrix response and source-linked result.
01 / 03Formulation R&D
Compare the experiment.
Not the spreadsheets.
Put formulation parameters and response curves side by side, with the source of every observation still attached.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
A scientist has experiment sheets, formulation versions and instrument exports. Before deciding what to investigate next, someone has to align sample IDs, units and time points, then rebuild the same comparison plots.
Inputs to scope
- Approved experiment sheet
- Formulation parameter export
- Dissolution results
What we would configure
Configure a workflow that proposes field mappings, flags inconsistent units, assembles parameter comparisons and drafts a source-linked summary. Approved calculations generate the numbers; the model helps organize and explain them.
Compare the formulation parameters and dissolution profiles for A, B and C. Keep the units visible and flag what needs scientific review.
Put formulation parameters and response curves side by side, with the source of every observation still attached.
| Elapsed time (minutes) | Formula A | Formula B | Formula C |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 27 | 22 | 34 |
| 30 | 61 | 53 | 69 |
| 45 | 82 | 77 | 87 |
| 60 | 92 | 89 | 95 |
| Parameter | Formula A | Formula B | Formula C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polymer (% w/w) | 2 | 3.5 | 5 |
| Mixing time (min) | 10 | 15 | 20 |
Multiple parameters differ. Matrix keeps units and source rows visible without recommending a formulation or test method.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
A parameter matrix, overlaid response curves, an exceptions list and a review-ready experiment brief.
Your decision point
The scientist approves mappings, checks comparability and decides the next experiment. Different curves do not prove causation or identify a winning formulation.
How we would accept it
Reconcile plotted values to source rows, account for every experiment, retain units and record reviewer corrections alongside preparation time.
02 / 03Analytical & QC
See the trend.
Keep the missing result visible.
Bring stability observations into one review pack without silently filling gaps or deciding whether a batch passes.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
Analysts assemble results across lots, pull dates and methods. Reformatting exports, finding missing observations and rebuilding trend charts can delay the scientific review the data was collected for.
Inputs to scope
- Approved stability protocol
- Lot and time-point exports
- Method and instrument metadata
What we would configure
Configure a read-only workflow to align approved result exports, check method and unit consistency, draw trends and assemble an evidence checklist. Missing observations and discrepancies stay explicit.
Compare the stability observations across lots. Show the trends and missing pulls without filling gaps or making a release decision.
Bring stability observations into one review pack without silently filling gaps or deciding whether a batch passes.
| Study time (months) | Lot A | Lot B | Lot C |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 3 | 99.4 | 99.1 | 99.6 |
| 6 | 98.8 | Not recorded | 99.1 |
| 9 | 98.2 | 98 | 98.9 |
| 12 | 97.9 | 97.5 | 98.6 |
Lot B at month 6 is not recorded and remains visible as a gap. No automatic interpolation, specification limit or shelf-life prediction is applied.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
A lot-by-time-point comparison, missing-pull register and a draft review packet linked to the original results.
Your decision point
Qualified analysts and QA interpret results, investigate exceptions and authorize action. The assistant does not invalidate results, close an OOS investigation, predict shelf life or release a batch.
How we would accept it
Trace every point and exception back to its source. Confirm that missing results are neither interpolated nor excluded from the review packet.
03 / 03Scientific data teams
One reviewable dataset.
No invisible cleanup.
Turn disconnected instrument and notebook exports into a documented dataset that another scientist can inspect and reuse.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
Data workers reconcile file names, sample identifiers, units and metadata before analysis can start. A neat chart is not enough if the team cannot explain how it was produced or which records changed.
Inputs to scope
- Authorized ELN/LIMS exports
- Instrument CSV files
- Approved data dictionary
What we would configure
Configure schema mappings and deterministic checks around the team’s data dictionary. Generate reproducible preparation scripts, visual summaries and a manifest of source files and transformations for review.
Summarize these instrument and notebook exports. Reconcile row counts and show unresolved unit mappings before preparing an analysis.
Turn disconnected instrument and notebook exports into a documented dataset that another scientist can inspect and reuse.
| Source | Rows retained | Unit exceptions |
|---|---|---|
| HPLC export | 120 | 3 |
| Plate reader | 80 | 2 |
| ELN export | 100 | 1 |
All 300 source rows remain visible. Six unit fields await an approved mapping; nothing is silently corrected or discarded.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
A reconciled dataset, transformation log, source manifest and reusable analysis notebook or report template.
Your decision point
The data owner approves mappings and transformations. Original records are retained; ambiguous units and identifiers are flagged, not guessed or silently dropped.
How we would accept it
Reconcile input/output row counts, preserve provenance, rerun the same calculations and review all unresolved mappings before use.
Give time back
to expert judgment.
Explore where less preparation could help your team, then choose one familiar task to try.
Your existing systems
remain the starting point.
Scope the first workflow around authorized exports from your ELN, LIMS, instrument software or document repository. Native connectors, write-back and production integration are separate deliverables to agree, not implied out-of-the-box features.
Sources
for these tasks.
These sources inform the workflow design, data responsibilities and acceptance questions. Customer-specific configuration and validation are agreed for each deployment.
- FDA / ICH Q8(R2): Pharmaceutical Development
Formulation attributes, excipients, process understanding and experimental design.
- FDA / ICH Q14: Analytical Procedure Development
Science- and risk-based analytical procedure development.
- FDA / ICH Q2(R2): Validation of Analytical Procedures
Validation context for analytical procedures and their intended use.
- FDA / ICH Q1E: Evaluation of Stability Data
Scientific evaluation of stability observations over time.
- FDA: Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP
Reliable, accurate data and risk-based data-integrity controls.
- Wilkinson et al.: The FAIR Guiding Principles (2016)
Primary research on metadata, interoperability, provenance and reusable scientific workflows.
Other walkthroughs.
Let’s make AI useful.
For your actual work.
Tell us about a job your team repeats, not your confidential files. We’ll show you how Matrix handles work like it.
Request a demo