I have noticed that engineering test reports often do not identify the test sample(s).
By "identify," I mean by something like a batch/lot number that would allow traceability to the sample's manufacturing methods and materials, rather than by a brand/model name and number (e.g. Craftsman 1/4-in slotted screwdriver, Model#123) or a physical description (e.g., 1/4-inch slotted screwdriver 12 inches long with acetate handle, etc).
I would be interested to know other people's experience and perspective on this, especially:
If you frequently read/review test reports, what is your experience with test sample identification? Do the reports you read always/usually/sometimes/rarely identify the test sample(s)?
If you routinely prepare test reports, do you typically identify the test sample(s)? Why or why not?
Are there circumstances in which you think test sample identification is critical? Circumstances in which you think it isn't necessary?
Do you know of any authoritative sources for the format and content of an engineering test report?
By "identify," I mean by something like a batch/lot number that would allow traceability to the sample's manufacturing methods and materials, rather than by a brand/model name and number (e.g. Craftsman 1/4-in slotted screwdriver, Model#123) or a physical description (e.g., 1/4-inch slotted screwdriver 12 inches long with acetate handle, etc).
I would be interested to know other people's experience and perspective on this, especially:
If you frequently read/review test reports, what is your experience with test sample identification? Do the reports you read always/usually/sometimes/rarely identify the test sample(s)?
If you routinely prepare test reports, do you typically identify the test sample(s)? Why or why not?
Are there circumstances in which you think test sample identification is critical? Circumstances in which you think it isn't necessary?
Do you know of any authoritative sources for the format and content of an engineering test report?
Last edited: