Keep qualitative pass or fail labels separate from measured results

Preserve the reported category

Keep them distinct so the register supports a review of what was reported instead of inventing a number behind a qualitative judgment.

Our public material-register example shows a synthetic report beside downloadable output. Use it to inspect how values and source references travel together. The self-service ParseMill trial is for invoice PDFs; supplier test reports and engineering review need a separate fit discussion.

Separate three fields when available: reported qualitative outcome, reported numerical value, and your organization’s assessment. A source can contain one, two or all three kinds of information, but the extraction process should not fill absent fields by inference.

Make the field roles explicit

Microsoft: Power Query data types distinguishes text and numeric field types. A text category can preserve a supplier label without pretending it is a number suitable for averaging. If an analyst needs coded categories later, keep the mapping in a derived field with an explicit codebook.

Capture the original result heading, any stated criterion, the report version and the source location. A bare Pass copied from a table loses meaning if the criterion or specimen changes. Do not infer that the label concerns the whole delivery when the source assigns it to only one sample or test.

Use a mixed-result fixture

Synthetic example: this invented supplier table deliberately combines categories and measurements. The final column is a receiving-team decision field, initially unfilled.

Test C retains both the number and the supplier’s Fail label. Test B must not become Pass solely because its value resembles a nearby specification. The summary statement needs its stated scope before anyone treats it as applying to every row.

Keep the decision boundary visible

NIST: Metrological traceability explains that metrological traceability alone does not establish fitness for purpose. A copied qualitative label supplies even less basis for an independent suitability decision. Record the applicable requirement and responsible reviewer separately when a technical assessment is needed.

If the source label conflicts with a displayed result or criterion, preserve both and raise a specific question. Do not silently change the supplier’s label to make the table internally consistent. An amended report should create a new source revision and a recorded reassessment of affected conclusions.

Verify categories survive delivery

Export and reopen the fixture using the recipient’s intended workflow. Confirm that Pass, Fail and Conforms remain their exact reported strings, that absent numbers remain absent, and that no default approval appears in the receiving-assessment field. Check blank labels separately from explicitly reported Not tested or Not applicable values.

For a supplier-report pilot, require a fixture containing qualitative and numerical results together. Agree how categories, absent numbers and source references would remain visible, and record actual corrections during the pilot. A successful transcription is still separate from engineering approval.