Runwisp

Water and soil laboratory field note

USE CASE / WATER + SOIL LABS

Make recurring water and soil QC easier to carry into review.

Runwisp gives small water and soil testing laboratories a focused path from recurring quality records to a clear compliance-reporting handoff—while your spreadsheets, instrument exports, and laboratory systems keep doing their jobs.

Request full pilot accessOpen the one-time proof preview
Synthetic or fully redacted data onlyOne laboratory / monthly pilot

Water + soil QC reporting path

Keep the source. Clarify the handoff.

SOURCE RECORD

Instrument export + recurring QC workbook

RUNWISP LAYER

Checks, context, exceptions, reviewer notes

REVIEW HANDOFF

A report that explains what changed and why

Designed for the recurring work between a lab system and the person who needs to sign off on the result.

01 / WORKS ALONGSIDE YOUR LAB

Add a reporting layer without reopening the whole operation.

Water and soil testing teams have already built a working chain of instruments, spreadsheets, and laboratory software. Runwisp is deliberately narrow: it helps make the QC evidence easier to inspect and explain.

Preserve the source / strengthen the handoff
01 / SPREADSHEETS

Keep the workbook your analysts already trust.

Bring the recurring control records, sample logs, and review notes you already maintain. Runwisp adds a consistent path to reporting without asking the team to abandon the working file.

Explore spreadsheet and CSV QC batch review
02 / INSTRUMENT EXPORTS

Turn exports into reviewable evidence.

Use supported instrument or CSV exports as the source record. Preserve the method, batch, control, and result context that a reviewer needs to understand what happened.

03 / LAB SYSTEMS

Work beside the systems around the lab.

Runwisp is a focused QC and reporting layer—not a replacement LIMS, instrument package, or laboratory operating system. The surrounding systems remain the system of record.

02 / THE RECURRING OUTCOME

Quality-control reporting that gets calmer every cycle.

The win is not another dashboard. It is fewer moments where a reviewer has to reconstruct the record, chase missing context, or wonder which version is current.

Evidence path

From record to review

01

Source record

Spreadsheet or instrument export

02

QC evidence

Mapped context and review notes

03

Review handoff

Report ready for sign-off

A repeatable review rhythm

Use the same evidence path for each recurring QC cycle instead of rebuilding the logic in a fresh workbook.

Exceptions that stay visible

Keep missing context, invalid values, and review flags close to the record before they become a reporting surprise.

A clearer compliance handoff

Give the next reviewer a traceable report and the reasoning behind it, without promising a regulatory outcome.

03 / THE PILOT OFFER

One laboratory. One clear reporting path. $349/month.

A focused pilot for teams that want to test the recurring QC and compliance-reporting workflow against their real operating rhythm—without a long implementation project.

Billed monthly and cancellable at any time
Synthetic or fully redacted data only
No custom integration during the pilot
No promise of compliance or regulatory outcome

The honest version

Better review evidence, not a magic compliance button.

Your laboratory remains responsible for its methods, decisions, records, and compliance obligations. Runwisp helps make the reporting path more consistent and legible.

Request full pilot access

04 / THE PROOF RUN

See the workflow before you make room for it.

Start with one recent export, keep it fully redacted, and inspect the path from source record to review. The proof is designed to make a fit decision concrete.

Open the one-time proof previewRequest a proof review
01

Bring one recent export

Use synthetic or fully redacted data from a real recurring water-and-soil testing workflow.

02

Inspect the evidence path

See how the record is normalized, where exceptions appear, and what a review handoff preserves.

03

Decide with evidence

If the path fits your lab, continue to qualification for the standardized monthly pilot.

Synthetic example · illustrative only
REPORT PREVIEW

QC REVIEW / EXAMPLE

Batch review summary

Method
EPA 8260D · VOCs
Instrument
GC/MS-02
Batch
RW-2609-014

QC observations

4 SYNTHETIC ROWS

  • Sample

    EW-014-A · Benzene

    1.8 µg/LPass

  • Method blank

    MB-014 · Target VOCs

    NDPass

  • LCS

    LCS-014 · Recovery panel

    96% meanPass

  • Surrogate

    EW-014-A · 1,2-DCA-d4

    71% recoveryReview

Example reviewer decision

Qualify EW-014-A and retain the exception note.

The 1,2-DCA-d4 surrogate recovery is 71%, below the example control window. Keep that exception with the batch context in this illustrative report.

This is not a customer result or compliance determination.

05 / PROOF-RUN QUALIFICATION

Start with the workflow, not the data.

Share the laboratory context behind the proof request. The team will review the workflow and follow up about a focused proof run using synthetic or fully redacted data.

Keep raw, confidential, and unredacted records out of this request.

Proof-run qualification

Tell us whether this workflow is worth a closer look.

Four details are enough to start. Do not include raw, confidential, or unredacted data.

06 / PROOF-RUN DELIVERABLES

Leave with something your reviewer can use.

A qualified laboratory should get more than a demo. The proof run ends with a compact evidence path that makes the next review easier to start.

01 / NORMALIZED CONTEXT

The record reads in one pass.

Method, instrument, batch, control, and result context are brought together for a clearer QC review.

02 / FLAGGED EXCEPTIONS

The awkward parts stay visible.

Missing context, invalid values, and review flags remain attached to the record instead of being smoothed over.

03 / REVIEW HANDOFF

The next step has a traceable starting point.

A bounded, review-ready report carries the evidence forward without promising a compliance or regulatory outcome.

Bring one recent, synthetic, or fully redacted export and see whether this handoff fits the way your lab already works.

Request full pilot access

07 / QUALIFICATION

A good fit is specific—and that is useful.

We are looking for a narrow, repeatable workflow where clearer QC reporting can prove its value quickly. If that sounds like your lab, the next step is short.

Check pilot qualification

Likely fit

  • A small water and soil testing or analytical laboratory
  • Recurring QC records that move through spreadsheet or export-based review
  • A team willing to start with synthetic or fully redacted data
  • A workflow where a clearer reporting handoff would save review effort

Not the pilot for

  • A replacement for your LIMS, instrument software, or laboratory system
  • A custom integration project during the pilot
  • A place to upload identifiable, confidential, or unredacted data
  • A compliance certification or guarantee of a regulatory outcome

08 / REQUEST ACCESS

Tell us where recurring QC gets heavy.

Share the lab context that will help us assess the workflow. A short description is enough to start; a sample file is optional unless you say your lab is ready for one.

Use synthetic or fully redacted data only. Never include identifiable or confidential information.

Subscription interest · pilot request
Show us where a recurring QC workflow needs support.

Share your lab fit, contact context, and the recurring QC workflow you want to address. This submits a pilot request for review without requiring an account or payment.

Choose the lab context that best matches your recurring workflow.

Include the recurring records, checks, or review handoffs that matter most.

A redacted example can help us understand fit. Never send identifiable or otherwise sensitive data here.

We can prepare a redacted sample.
We need to discuss the right format.

Upload one synthetic or fully de-identified CSV, up to 10 MiB. A file is required when you select that your lab is ready for self-service qualification. Never include patient names, identifiers, dates of birth, addresses, emails, accession numbers, or other confidential data.