Connects to the tools you use
Set up connections through ERP.AI and Proto workflows, with every change logged.
- Soil Testing Lab System
- Field sample source
- Instrument or result source
- Method document source
- Evidence source
Soil Testing Lab System connects soil sample intake and analyte records with the laboratory's inspection and quality process. The Inspector prepares the operational inspection and captures samples with a sample number, field reference, depth, collection date and receipt date.
Inspections in one list
The Quality Reviewer decides eligible inspection scope after examining the resolved checks and evidence.
Every feature works on the same records. Pick one to see the screen your team works in.
Record the sample's field, depth and receipt context against its inspection.
Soil samples
| Sample number | Field reference | Depth CM | Collected at | Received at | Operational record | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SS-94246 | North field block A | 350 | 16 Oct | 18 Oct | Greenhouse batch quality check | |
| SS-70638 | East orchard row 7 | 160 | 15 Oct | 18 Oct | Greenhouse batch quality check | |
| SS-87436 | Greenhouse bed 4 | 790 | 30 Oct | 23 Oct | East orchard sample inspection | |
| SS-14630 | West pasture paddock 2 | 430 | 11 Oct | 15 Oct | Greenhouse batch quality check | |
| SS-80885 | Irrigation plot B | 30 | 26 Oct | 23 Oct | South meadow result review |
Keep each analyte value with its sample, unit, method and reviewing person.
Soil results
| Sample | Analyte | Value | Unit | Method | Reviewed by | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West pasture, 0 to 20 cm | Soil acidity | 640 | acidity units | Water slurry acidity 1:2 | Musa Kamara | |
| Hilltop vineyard, 0 to 30 cm | Available phosphorus | 830 | mg/kg | Olsen phosphorus extraction | Nadia Rahman | |
| Greenhouse bed 4, 0 to 10 cm | Nitrate nitrogen | 200 | percent | Potassium chloride nitrate extraction | Aiko Tanaka | |
| West pasture, 0 to 20 cm | Exchangeable potassium | 370 | decisiemens per meter | Ammonium acetate extraction | Sophie Nguyen | |
| North field, 0 to 15 cm | Organic matter | 610 | cmol/kg | Loss on ignition | Carmen Silva |
Resolve the requirements and evidence before accepting or rejecting inspection scope.
Approval conditions
| Inspection number | Subject reference | Inspection type | Scheduled at | Assigned to | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INS-58356 | Sample SOIL-2026-0412 | Incoming | 20 Oct | Leena Patel | Review | |
| INS-33595 | Batch LAB-2026-083 | In process | 21 Oct | Nadia Rahman | Review | |
| INS-97516 | North field intake | Final | 02 Nov | Musa Kamara | Review | |
| INS-14085 | East orchard receipt | Service | 25 Oct | Leena Patel | Review | |
| INS-63062 | Acidity calibration log 14 Oct | Incoming | 29 Oct | Musa Kamara | Review |
Contain failed inspection scope and close corrective work only after independent verification.
Close waits for the quality reviewer
| Nonconformance | Root cause | Action | Due date | Completed at | Owner | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broken seal on orchard sample | Courier seal failed in transit | Request a replacement sample | 25 Oct | Musa Kamara | ||
| Duplicate sample label found | Field form omitted depth entry | Retrain field collection team | 16 Oct | Aiko Tanaka | ||
| Moisture reading transcription error | Buffer solution was expired | Prepare fresh calibration buffer | 31 Oct | Aiko Tanaka | ||
| Chain of custody gap | Labels printed twice for one batch | Relabel and verify both jars | 03 Nov | Elias Romero | ||
| Field depth missing from intake | Pickup route delayed delivery | Revise courier pickup schedule | 30 Oct | Musa Kamara |
Keep approved procedures and staff acknowledgments tied to the intended document version.
Controlled documents
| Title | Version | Effective date | Document | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil sample receipt procedure | Version 1.0 | 27 Oct | sample-receipt-sop-v2.pdf | Approved | |
| Available phosphorus method | Version 1.1 | 17 Oct | phosphorus-method-v1.pdf | Approved | |
| Soil acidity calibration procedure | Version 1.2 | 17 Oct | ph-calibration-sop-v3.pdf | Approved | |
| Nitrate extraction method | Version 2.0 | 14 Oct | nitrate-extraction-v2.pdf | Approved | |
| Chain of custody policy | Version 2.1 | 02 Nov | chain-of-custody-policy.pdf | Approved |
Follow audit findings and use inspection evidence to explain quality work.
Inspections
| Inspection number | Subject reference | Inspection type | Scheduled at | Completed at | Assigned to | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INS-72399 | Sample SOIL-2026-0412 | Incoming | 04 Nov | Leena Patel | ||
| INS-53509 | Batch LAB-2026-083 | In process | 20 Oct | Tomas Novak | ||
| INS-84293 | North field intake | Final | 04 Nov | Elias Romero | ||
| INS-21889 | East orchard receipt | Service | 16 Oct | Leena Patel | ||
| INS-23703 | Acidity calibration log 14 Oct | Incoming | 12 Oct | Leena Patel |
From soil sample to reviewed quality outcome ships ready to use. 2 steps need a named approval before the work moves on: Decide inspection (Quality Reviewer) and Verify effectiveness (Quality Reviewer).
Identify the operational inspection, its requirements and the assigned person.
Record field, depth and receipt context against the intended inspection.
Keep each measured value with its sample, unit, method and reviewing person.
Resolve the requirement observations and supporting evidence before submission.
Have the Quality Reviewer accept passing scope or reject failed work.
Require an independent accepted outcome before corrective work closes.
Open any inspection to see its inspection checks, the roles that work on it, its process stages and its approvals on one page.
Scheduled at, Assigned to and Status.
Each line is linked to this inspection.
Admin, Inspector and Lab Analyst, each with their own permissions.
Prepare inspection and Receive soil samples, with the role that acts.
Decide inspection and Verify effectiveness, with who decides.
Incoming
| Inspection | Requirement | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Hilltop vineyard sample check | Sample label matches intake form | Seal intact on all jars |
| Greenhouse batch quality check | Seal intact at receipt | Depth missing on field sheet |
| Irrigation plot final review | Depth recorded in centimeters | Control within acceptance range |
Signed in as Quality Reviewer
| Decision | Approver | |
|---|---|---|
| Decide inspectionHave the Quality Reviewer accept passing scope or reject failed work. | Quality Reviewer | |
| Verify effectivenessRequire an independent accepted outcome before corrective work closes. | Quality Reviewer | |
| Approve Inspections, corrective actions, controlled documents | Quality Reviewer |
Everyone opens Soil Testing Lab System to the work that is theirs. Pick a role to see what it starts with.
Maintains account access and the person-to-user mapping used by guarded operations.
Prepares assigned inspections, captures soil samples and resolves linked requirement checks.
This is the first screen this role sees.
Inspections · Inspector
Captures analyte values with the intended sample, unit, method and reviewing person.
This is the first screen this role sees.
Controlled documents · Lab Analyst
| Title | Version | Effective date | Document | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil sample receipt procedure | Version 1.0 | 27 Oct | sample-receipt-sop-v2.pdf | Approved | |
| Available phosphorus method | Version 1.1 | 17 Oct | phosphorus-method-v1.pdf | Approved | |
| Soil acidity calibration procedure | Version 1.2 | 17 Oct | ph-calibration-sop-v3.pdf | Approved | |
| Nitrate extraction method | Version 2.0 | 14 Oct | nitrate-extraction-v2.pdf | Approved | |
| Chain of custody policy | Version 2.1 | 02 Nov | chain-of-custody-policy.pdf | Approved |
Decides eligible inspection scope and independently verifies corrective effectiveness.
This is the first screen this role sees.
Controlled documents · Quality Reviewer
| Title | Version | Effective date | Document | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil sample receipt procedure | Version 1.0 | 25 Oct | sample-receipt-sop-v2.pdf | Draft | |
| Available phosphorus method | Version 1.1 | 17 Oct | phosphorus-method-v1.pdf | Draft | |
| Soil acidity calibration procedure | Version 1.2 | 01 Nov | ph-calibration-sop-v3.pdf | Draft | |
| Nitrate extraction method | Version 2.0 | 13 Oct | nitrate-extraction-v2.pdf | Draft | |
| Chain of custody policy | Version 2.1 | 19 Oct | chain-of-custody-policy.pdf | Draft |
Prepares corrective plans and implementation evidence for independent verification.
This is the first screen this role sees.
Nonconformances · Action Owner
Maintains controlled method records and records staff acknowledgment of the intended version.
This is the first screen this role sees.
Controlled documents · Document Coordinator
| Title | Version | Effective date | Document | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil sample receipt procedure | Version 1.0 | 25 Oct | sample-receipt-sop-v2.pdf | Draft | |
| Available phosphorus method | Version 1.1 | 17 Oct | phosphorus-method-v1.pdf | Draft | |
| Soil acidity calibration procedure | Version 1.2 | 01 Nov | ph-calibration-sop-v3.pdf | Draft | |
| Nitrate extraction method | Version 2.0 | 13 Oct | nitrate-extraction-v2.pdf | Draft | |
| Chain of custody policy | Version 2.1 | 19 Oct | chain-of-custody-policy.pdf | Draft |
Conducts quality audits and assigns findings with due dates and supporting requirements.
This is the first screen this role sees.
Inspections · Quality Auditor
Read sample context, quality outcomes and owned follow-up from the underlying records.
This quarter
How far records got this quarter
| Stage | Reached | Step | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planned | 45 | ||
| In progress | 26 | 58% | |
| Review | 19 | 73% | |
| Accepted | 10 | 53% |
Sample counts per stage
Which field reference and collection depth belong to the received material, and which inspection carries its operating context?
What value, unit and method are recorded against the sample and reviewing person?
Which requirements remain Pending, and what observation and evidence explain a Pass or Fail?
Who is assigned to the inspection, and what work is Planned, In progress or in Review?
Which inspection issues remain under containment, investigation or disposition, and what corrective work is linked to them?
Which owned actions are being implemented or awaiting independent verification?
Which person acknowledged the intended controlled document, and what version context does that record show?
Which requirements have owned findings with due dates and recorded closure information?
See how Soil Testing Lab System fits your kind of team.
Keep field and depth context with measured analyte records and laboratory review.
Preserve sample context and analytical evidence through the laboratory's quality decisions.
Keep sample provenance and method context readable across successive laboratory exercises.
Each stage, from soil sample to reviewed quality outcome, names the role that acts and the status it records, so a change is never anonymous.
Each stage, the role that acts and the status it records
Use Proto to prepare sample context and organize evidence for human quality review.
Set up connections through ERP.AI and Proto workflows, with every change logged.
Every record lives in a table you can see, extend and export. Add fields or whole tables in Proto.
Browse all 12 tablesStart with one team and one process, then add the rest once the basics are running.
Select a known field sample and the inspection requirements used by the laboratory. Identify the Inspector, Lab Analyst and Quality Reviewer who will rehearse the work.
Admin maps user accounts to people. Document Coordinator prepares the intended procedure versions and evidence, and the team agrees analyte, unit and method labels.
Record the sample’s field, depth and dates, then enter an attributed analyte result. Test missing references, impossible date intervals and repeated source identities before a wider import.
Resolve linked checks and submit the inspection to Review. Rehearse a passing acceptance and a failed-check rejection, then inspect the resulting nonconformance and repeated-command behavior.
Assign an action owner and due date, record implementation evidence and use a different person for effectiveness review. Test a failed verification and a parent issue with other linked actions still unresolved.
$0per user
The base account and everyday work in the ERP.AI app are free, for every user.
| Usage | Per $1 |
|---|---|
| Record reads (list, filter, get) | 20,000 |
| Search or aggregate queries | 4,000 |
| Record writes | 4,000 |
| Imported or synced records | 200,000 |
| Workflow runs | 2,000 |
| AI agent runs | 2,000 |
| Scheduled jobs or webhooks | 20,000 |
| File uploads (MB) | 2,000 |
| CSV or PDF exports | 100 |
Click Get started, then use Proto to configure Soil Testing Lab System for your business. Begin with a known field sample, its receipt inspection and the people who will capture results and review the quality evidence.
Record the sample number, field reference and depth in centimeters with collection and receipt dates. Link the sample to its operational inspection before preparing analyte entries.
Record the analyte, unit and method with the intended sample and reviewing person. Keep those details visible when the laboratory examines or compares results.
The Inspector resolves all linked checks with their observations, results and evidence before submitting the inspection. Pending checks need resolution under the guarded conduct procedure.
Configure the Quality Reviewer to decide eligible Review-stage work. The reviewer examines the supporting checks and accepts passing scope or rejects failed scope through the disposition procedure.
Rejected scope produces a linked nonconformance for the failed requirement under the disposition workflow. The team inspects that issue and coordinates containment and corrective work as needed.
Action Owner submits implementation evidence and an independent Quality Reviewer evaluates effectiveness. Only an accepted outcome closes the action, and the parent nonconformance closes only when all linked actions have accepted outcomes.
Document Coordinator prepares the intended title, version and effective date for review. Preserve earlier version context and record staff acknowledgment against the document they were asked to read.
Set up the chosen instrument or result-source connection during implementation. Map sample identity, units and methods, then rehearse invalid references and repeated source entries before importing further results.
Start free, then use Proto to change fields, steps and approvals before your team goes live.