It’s evident that changing “Fail-Flag” term to “Pass-Flag” better describes the actionable status at the library aliquot level.
This status is meant as a warning flag that QC results showed some issues with the sample, but that the sample can and should still be used in further alignments and analysis.
Please let me know what you think and if/when the nimp_label can be changed to “Pass-Flag” for code 2 in PD-KRKRCT43.
From Kim:
It’s evident that changing “Fail-Flag” term to “Pass-Flag” better describes the actionable status at the library aliquot level. This status is meant as a warning flag that QC results showed some issues with the sample, but that the sample can and should still be used in further alignments and analysis.
Please let me know what you think and if/when the nimp_label can be changed to “Pass-Flag” for code 2 in PD-KRKRCT43.