Automata error handling needs sample-safe stop conditions

Classify the event before selecting a response

The direct answer is to define which conditions are warnings, recoverable technical errors, workflow exceptions, sample-integrity risks, instrument faults, method deviations, safety events, data-integrity events, or unknown states. For each event retain workcell, instrument, device and software versions, workflow and step, command, expected response, observed response, timestamps, sensor or message evidence, affected run and samples, prior actions, severity, confidence, and the rule version that selected the response.

Do not treat silence as failure or a successful command acknowledgment as completed physical action. A delayed device response, gripper mispick, unread barcode, open door, temperature excursion, partial dispense, clogged tip, plate-position conflict, unavailable LIMS, or failed data upload can require different containment. When the system cannot distinguish them with approved evidence, the safe classification is unresolved and the workflow should enter its defined stop state.

Protect sample identity and physical state

Every recovery decision should resolve to sample, container, aliquot, plate, well, material, batch or study, method and version, required controls, instrument, location, custody, process step, elapsed time, environmental limits, consumed volume, prior results, and remaining allowed operations. Preserve the last confirmed physical state separately from the last requested or reported software state. An automated retry must not assume that a pipetting, incubation, transfer, measurement, or storage step never occurred merely because an acknowledgment is missing.

Define hold, quarantine, preserve, cool, cover, park, discard, reidentify, remeasure, restart, resume, and escalation actions with qualified scientific, quality, safety, and engineering review. Some actions are reversible in software but not in the specimen. A repeated aspiration can alter volume; a second incubation changes time; a reopened container can affect integrity; and a rerun can create another result without resolving which record is valid.

Bound retries and closed-loop actions

For each automatic response, specify preconditions, permitted attempts, interval and timeout, protected states, compensating action, maximum cumulative process effect, verification, stop threshold, notification, and accountable owner. Separate a device retry, workflow branch, data retransmission, parameter adjustment, sample disposition, and scientific decision. Closed-loop logic should not change a method, specification, calculation, acceptance criterion, result status, or downstream ranking unless the authorized procedure explicitly allows that bounded action.

Record the original error and every automatic or human action as an append-only sequence. Include configuration, code and model versions, input and output, user or service identity, timestamps, reasons, alerts, acknowledgments, overrides, approvals, and prior state. A recovered run state should not erase the exception. Privileged intervention, manual movement, emergency access, and resumption need independent review where the laboratory's intended use and procedures require it.

Reconcile recovery across the laboratory stack

Test ordinary and failure paths with representative samples and devices: missing barcode, duplicate identity, partial dispense, device timeout after motion, temperature excursion, power loss, stale workflow version, unavailable ELN or LIMS, rejected upload, duplicate result, manual relocation, and restart on a second instrument. Reconcile the workcell log to sample-management, LIMS, ELN, instrument data, raw files, processed results, deviations, review, approval, and archive records. Require evidence for both the intended recovery and the final sample disposition.

Automata's official LINQ page supports the attributed workcell, workflow, run-management, monitoring, error-handling, API, Python, data-task, closed-loop, and laboratory-system integration positioning. It does not establish a buyer's configuration, method equivalence, instrument state, sample identity or fitness, error detection, recovery safety, data completeness, validation, compliance, scientific validity, throughput, or outcome. Laboratory, scientific, quality, automation, engineering, safety, data, and IT owners retain those decisions.

Enterprise buyer test

Translate this change into the exact population, record type, workflow stage, decision owner, effective date, and evidence that could be affected. Ask current or prospective providers to demonstrate the named workflow with representative data and an exception—not a polished feature tour. Record what official documentation establishes, what a provider states, what the team observes, and what remains unresolved.

A defensible review also identifies the dependency outside the product. Authority interpretation, policy configuration, data quality, integrations, human judgment, approval rights, release governance, training, and retained evidence may remain customer or service responsibilities. The evaluation should preserve those boundaries instead of treating a technology claim as the complete operating model.

What we will watch next

Lab Systems Index will watch the named source and affected market records for later evidence that changes status, scope, availability, implementation timing, workflow consequence, or the limits of the initial report. A later announcement does not silently overwrite this dated account; the change ledger preserves the sequence.