Below is a working file from an organisation, followed by 20 questions about it. Some values in the file may have been replaced with markers of the form [REDACTED: ...].

Answer every question using only the information in the file. Do not use tools, other files or the web.
If the file does not give you what you need to answer a question, write CANNOT DETERMINE as the answer to that question.

Reply with exactly 20 lines and nothing else, in this form:
Q1: <answer>
Q2: <answer>
...
Q20: <answer>
Write dates as YYYY-MM-DD.

=== FILE ===

# Contract Measurement Campaign CMC-2026-07 — Campaign Report and Working File

**Laboratory:** Thin-Film Optics Group, Department of Materials Science, Ionian Technical University (invented institution, Patras)
**Client:** [REDACTED: partner identity] (hereafter "the Partner")
**Product under study:** [REDACTED: partner identity] (hereafter "the product line")
**Report version:** 1.2, issued 2026-06-26
**Principal investigator:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**Partner technical contact:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**Campaign operators:** [REDACTED: personal name], [REDACTED: personal name], [REDACTED: personal name]
**Laboratory quality officer:** [REDACTED: personal name]

This file collects everything that was produced during the campaign: the scope, the sample log, the recipe sheet, the measurement protocol, the raw results, the detector calibration, the acceptance criterion taken from the Partner's specification, the exchange of correspondence, the discussion, a deviations log and the annexes. It is a working file, not a polished publication. Where a section refers to a rule, the rule is written out in the same file so that nobody has to look elsewhere to apply it.

---

## 1. Scope and objectives

### 1.1 Background

The Partner develops optical thin films for display and lighting applications. In March 2026 the Partner asked the laboratory to characterise a family of twelve thin-film samples that were grown in the laboratory's own furnace using four process recipes defined jointly with the Partner's process engineers. The Partner needs, for each sample, the photoluminescence (PL) response under a fixed excitation condition, and the film thickness. The results feed a go/no-go decision on which growth recipe will be transferred to the Partner's pilot line.

The contract (reference CMC-2026-07, signed 2026-03-24) defines the work as follows:

1. Growth of twelve samples, three per recipe, on the substrates named in the recipe sheet (section 4).
2. PL measurement of every sample on the laboratory's PL station with the settings given in section 5.
3. Thickness measurement of every sample by stylus profilometry on the witness step.
4. Correction of the PL intensities for the detector response using the daily calibration factor (section 7).
5. Evaluation of the corrected results against the acceptance criterion in the Partner's specification (section 8).
6. Delivery of this report to the Partner's technical contact.

### 1.2 What is in scope and what is not

In scope are the twelve samples S-01 to S-12, the four recipe codes R-A to R-D, one PL peak per sample and one thickness value per sample. Out of scope are time-resolved PL, quantum-yield measurements, temperature-dependent studies, and any ageing or humidity exposure. The Partner has said that these may be requested in a follow-up contract if the primary results justify it.

### 1.3 Deliverables and dates

| Deliverable | Planned date | Actual date |
|---|---|---|
| Growth of samples complete | 2026-06-03 | 2026-06-02 |
| PL and thickness measurements complete | 2026-06-19 | 2026-06-16 |
| Draft report to Partner | 2026-06-24 | 2026-06-23 |
| Final report issued | 2026-06-30 | 2026-06-26 |

### 1.4 Roles

The principal investigator is responsible for the scientific content and signs the report. The three operators grew the samples, ran the measurements and entered the data. The laboratory quality officer reviewed the data entry against the instrument exports. The Partner's technical contact is the single point of contact for questions about the specification and receives the report.

---

## 2. Working arrangements and confidentiality

The contract contains a confidentiality clause. The recipe parameters, the detector calibration factors, the identity of the Partner and its product line, and the names of the persons involved are treated as confidential by the laboratory. Copies of this file that leave the laboratory are prepared by the quality officer.

Samples were stored in labelled, nitrogen-flushed boxes between growth and measurement. The box labels carry only the sample ID (S-01 … S-12). The recipe codes (R-A … R-D) are used in all internal documents; the full recipe sheet is held in section 4 of this file and in the furnace logbook.

Data were entered by the operators on the day of the measurement into the shared spreadsheet and were checked by the quality officer on the next working day. Corrections to entries are listed in the deviations log (section 11).

---

## 3. Sample log

### 3.1 Sample log table

The table gives, for each sample, the recipe code, the growth date, the measurement date (the date of the PL and thickness measurements, which were always taken on the same day) and the operator who ran the measurement.

| Sample | Recipe code | Growth date | Measurement date | Operator |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S-01 | R-A | 2026-05-18 | 2026-06-08 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-02 | R-B | 2026-05-18 | 2026-06-08 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-03 | R-C | 2026-05-19 | 2026-06-08 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-04 | R-D | 2026-05-19 | 2026-06-09 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-05 | R-A | 2026-05-25 | 2026-06-09 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-06 | R-B | 2026-05-25 | 2026-06-09 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-07 | R-C | 2026-05-26 | 2026-06-15 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-08 | R-D | 2026-05-26 | 2026-06-15 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-09 | R-A | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-15 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-10 | R-B | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-16 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-11 | R-C | 2026-06-02 | 2026-06-16 | [REDACTED: personal name] |
| S-12 | R-D | 2026-06-02 | 2026-06-16 | [REDACTED: personal name] |

### 3.2 Remarks on the sample log

Growth was organised in four growth rounds. Each round produced one sample of each of the recipes that were run that week, and the rounds were separated by about a week because the furnace has to be requalified after each long anneal. Round 1 ran on 2026-05-18 and 2026-05-19, round 2 on 2026-05-25 and 2026-05-26, and round 3 on 2026-06-01 and 2026-06-02. Within a round, two recipes were grown on the first day and two on the second day.

The interval between growth and measurement was not the same for all samples. The Partner's specification contains no limit on the storage interval, but it asks that the interval be reported. Samples were kept in the nitrogen boxes during the whole interval, and no change of the PL signal with storage time has been demonstrated in the laboratory's earlier work on similar films. The quality officer nevertheless asked that a storage-time column be added to the data sheet in the follow-up contract, and the principal investigator agreed.

Measurement days were chosen so that the PL station was free and the reference lamp could be calibrated in the morning. Four measurement days were used: 2026-06-08, 2026-06-09, 2026-06-15 and 2026-06-16. Three samples were measured on each of the four days. The sample order within a day was fixed in advance and is the order of the table above.

---

## 4. Recipe sheet

### 4.1 Recipe parameters

The recipe sheet below was agreed with the Partner's process engineers. The recipe codes R-A … R-D are the codes that appear in every other table of this report. The anneal temperature is the plateau temperature of the furnace thermocouple, the anneal time is the time at plateau, the precursor ratio is the molar ratio of the two precursor solutions in the coating bath, and the substrate is the material on which the film was grown.

| Recipe code | Anneal temperature | Anneal time | Precursor ratio | Substrate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-A | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] |
| R-B | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] |
| R-C | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] |
| R-D | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] | [REDACTED: trade secret process] |

### 4.2 Notes on the recipes

All four recipes share the same pre-clean of the substrate (solvent sequence followed by an oxygen plasma of a few minutes), the same bath temperature during coating, the same withdrawal speed and the same drying step before the anneal. The ramp rate of the furnace was the same for all recipes. Only the four parameters in the table above differ between recipes.

The furnace thermocouple was verified against a certified reference before the first growth round and again after the last. The deviation between the two verifications was within the thermocouple's stated uncertainty, so no correction was applied to the plateau temperatures.

Each anneal produced exactly one sample. No sample shares a furnace run with another. The anneal time listed for a recipe is therefore also the furnace time consumed by one sample of that recipe, and the sum of furnace times is relevant for the contract's cost accounting (section 9, correspondence of 2026-06-10).

Witness pieces were cut from every substrate before coating so that an uncoated step was available for the profilometer. The witness step was formed by masking a strip of the substrate with a polyimide tape during coating; the tape was removed before the anneal.

---

## 5. Measurement protocol

### 5.1 PL measurement

PL spectra were taken on the laboratory's PL station (annex A). The excitation wavelength was 405 nm, the incident power at the sample was 5.0 mW, and the spot diameter was about 0.5 mm. The integration time was 2 s per spectrum, and three spectra were accumulated and averaged for each sample. The spectrometer slit was set to 100 µm, which gives an instrumental bandwidth of about 1.2 nm at the wavelengths of interest.

The following quantities are extracted from each averaged spectrum:

- **Raw peak intensity**, in counts: the maximum of the spectrum after dark-signal subtraction, before any response correction.
- **Peak position**, in nm: the wavelength of the maximum, obtained from a parabolic fit to the five points around the maximum.
- **FWHM**, in nm: the full width at half maximum, obtained by linear interpolation at the half-maximum level on both flanks.

The raw peak intensity depends on the detector response of the day, which is why the daily calibration of section 7 is required. The peak position and the FWHM are not affected by the multiplicative correction.

### 5.2 Thickness measurement

The film thickness was measured by stylus profilometry across the witness step. Five scans were taken at different positions along the step, and the mean step height is reported to the nearest nanometre. The profilometer was checked with a step standard at the beginning of each measurement day.

### 5.3 Order of operations on a measurement day

On each measurement day the sequence was the same:

1. The PL station was switched on and left to stabilise for half an hour.
2. The detector dark signal was recorded.
3. The reference lamp was measured and the daily calibration factor was determined (section 7).
4. The three samples of the day were measured in the order of the sample log.
5. The reference lamp was measured again at the end of the day as a drift check.
6. The profilometer was checked with the step standard and the thickness scans were taken.

### 5.4 Environmental conditions

The laboratory is air-conditioned. The room temperature during the measurement days stayed between 21 °C and 23 °C, and the relative humidity between 38 % and 46 %. The stability of the ambient conditions was recorded by a data logger. No condition outside these limits occurred during the measurements.

---

## 6. Raw results

### 6.1 Raw results table

The table reports the raw peak intensity (counts, before correction), the peak position (nm), the FWHM (nm) and the film thickness (nm) for each sample. The measurement date is repeated so that each row can be matched to the calibration table in section 7.

| Sample | Recipe code | Measurement date | Raw PL peak intensity (counts) | Peak position (nm) | FWHM (nm) | Film thickness (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S-01 | R-A | 2026-06-08 | 41800 | 531.4 | 22.8 | 412 |
| S-02 | R-B | 2026-06-08 | 47200 | 538.9 | 21.6 | 455 |
| S-03 | R-C | 2026-06-08 | 52300 | 546.2 | 25.1 | 503 |
| S-04 | R-D | 2026-06-09 | 44900 | 535.0 | 23.4 | 468 |
| S-05 | R-A | 2026-06-09 | 43100 | 530.8 | 22.1 | 398 |
| S-06 | R-B | 2026-06-09 | 54600 | 539.6 | 20.9 | 441 |
| S-07 | R-C | 2026-06-15 | 49800 | 547.1 | 26.0 | 520 |
| S-08 | R-D | 2026-06-15 | 46300 | 534.2 | 22.7 | 481 |
| S-09 | R-A | 2026-06-15 | 50100 | 532.0 | 21.9 | 405 |
| S-10 | R-B | 2026-06-16 | 49500 | 538.2 | 22.3 | 462 |
| S-11 | R-C | 2026-06-16 | 51200 | 545.5 | 24.8 | 497 |
| S-12 | R-D | 2026-06-16 | 42700 | 536.1 | 23.9 | 475 |

### 6.2 Uncertainties

The repeatability of the raw peak intensity, estimated from repeated measurements of one control sample on one day, is about 1.5 % (one standard deviation). The peak position is repeatable to 0.2 nm and the FWHM to 0.3 nm. The thickness has a repeatability of about 6 nm over the five scans. These uncertainties are not included in the table; they are stated here so that readers can judge how much weight a small difference between two samples deserves.

### 6.3 Data integrity

Each row of the raw results table was compared by the quality officer with the instrument export files. Two transcription errors were found and corrected before the report was issued; they are listed in section 11. The corrected table above is the one that was used for all later evaluation.

---

## 7. Detector calibration

### 7.1 The correction rule

The response of the PL detector changes from day to day with the detector temperature, the cooling performance and the alignment of the fibre. The laboratory therefore measures a calibrated reference lamp every morning and derives a correction factor for the day. The rule for applying the factor is:

> **corrected intensity = raw counts × factor for the day of the measurement**

The factor is dimensionless. It is applied to the raw peak intensity of every sample measured on that day, and to nothing else. The corrected intensity is expressed in counts and is the quantity to which the acceptance criterion of section 8 applies.

### 7.2 Daily factors

| Measurement day | Correction factor |
|---|---|
| 2026-06-08 | [REDACTED: trade secret calibration] |
| 2026-06-09 | [REDACTED: trade secret calibration] |
| 2026-06-15 | [REDACTED: trade secret calibration] |
| 2026-06-16 | [REDACTED: trade secret calibration] |

### 7.3 How the factors were obtained

Each morning the reference lamp (annex A, item A.5) was placed at the sample position and its spectrum was recorded with the same slit and integration settings as the samples. The ratio between the lamp's certified output at the reference wavelength and the measured counts, normalised to the detector's nominal responsivity, gives the factor of the day. The end-of-day lamp measurement was used only as a drift check. On all four measurement days the end-of-day measurement agreed with the morning measurement within the repeatability of the lamp readings, so the morning factor was used for all samples of the day.

### 7.4 Calibration lamp traceability

The reference lamp was last calibrated by an accredited laboratory in January 2026, and its certificate is held by the quality officer. The certificate's validity extends beyond the end of the campaign. The lamp is stored in a dark, dry cabinet and is used only for the daily calibration.

### 7.5 Handling of the calibration data

The calibration factors form part of the confidential results. In the copy of this report that goes to the Partner they are given with the table of section 7.2; in any copy that goes to other recipients, they are withheld. The rule of section 7.1 is public within the laboratory and is described in the instrument manual.

---

## 8. Acceptance criterion

### 8.1 Text of the criterion

The Partner's specification, clause 6.3, defines the acceptance criterion for a sample of the product line as follows:

> A sample is accepted ("pass") if its corrected PL peak intensity is at least 50000 counts **and** its FWHM is at most 24.0 nm. A sample that does not satisfy both conditions is rejected ("fail"). The peak position and the thickness are reported but do not enter the decision.

### 8.2 Application

The criterion is applied sample by sample. The corrected intensity is obtained with the rule of section 7.1. The FWHM is taken from section 6.1 without correction. A sample whose corrected intensity or FWHM is exactly equal to the limit satisfies the condition for that quantity.

The Partner's specification, clause 6.4, asks for a recipe-level recommendation in addition to the sample-level decision. The laboratory has agreed to give the sample-level decisions in the final report and to leave the recipe-level recommendation to the Partner's process engineers, because the recipe-level decision involves considerations (cost, throughput, tolerance to furnace variation) that the laboratory cannot assess.

### 8.3 Interpretation notes

The Partner's technical contact confirmed on 2026-06-12 that the 50000-count limit refers to the corrected intensity and not to the raw counts. The wording of clause 6.3 was ambiguous in the first draft of the specification and was clarified at the Partner's request; the text quoted above is the clarified version.

---

## 9. Correspondence

The following messages are reproduced from the project mailbox. Greetings and signatures are kept; attachments are omitted. Messages are in chronological order.

### 9.1 Message of 2026-03-27

**From:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**Cc:** (none; the laboratory's quality officer will be added when measurements begin)
**Subject:** CMC-2026-07 — kick-off and sample numbering

Dear Prof. [REDACTED: personal name],

Thank you for countersigning the contract. On behalf of [REDACTED: partner identity] I confirm that we will keep the numbering S-01 … S-12 and the recipe codes R-A … R-D. Please note that our process engineers would like the report to carry the recipe parameters in a separate table, as agreed, and not in the results tables. We are looking forward to seeing the first growth rounds.

One practical point: we would like to know the measurement dates as they happen, because our pilot-line planning meets on Thursdays.

Kind regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]
Technical Manager, [REDACTED: partner identity]

### 9.2 Message of 2026-05-04

**From:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** CMC-2026-07 — growth schedule

Dear Dr [REDACTED: personal name],

The growth rounds are scheduled for the weeks starting 2026-05-18, 2026-05-25 and 2026-06-01. The furnace needs about a week between rounds because of the requalification step. Measurements will follow in the two weeks after growth where the PL station allows; I will confirm the dates.

I would also like to ask whether the laboratory may add a control sample on a spare substrate in each round to track furnace repeatability. We would of course not charge for it.

Best regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.3 Message of 2026-05-06

**From:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** RE: CMC-2026-07 — growth schedule

Dear Prof. [REDACTED: personal name],

The schedule is fine for us. The control samples are welcome but they should not be included in the report tables, because the contract fixes the number of reported samples at twelve. If you wish, you can keep their results in your own notebook.

Kind regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.4 Message of 2026-06-05

**From:** [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** Measurement plan for the next two weeks

Dear Professor,

All twelve samples are now grown. The PL station is booked on 2026-06-08 and 2026-06-09 for the first six samples and on 2026-06-15 and 2026-06-16 for the remaining six. The reference lamp is back from the service check, and I will determine the factor in the morning of each measurement day as in the protocol. I will enter the raw values in the shared sheet at the end of each day.

Best regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.5 Message of 2026-06-10

**From:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** Furnace time accounting

Dear Prof. [REDACTED: personal name],

Our finance department asks that the furnace time consumed by the twelve samples be stated in the final invoice annex, in minutes of plateau time, using the anneal times of the recipe sheet. Could you please add a short line to the report that gives the total? We understand that each sample had its own furnace run.

Kind regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.6 Message of 2026-06-11

**From:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** RE: Furnace time accounting

Dear Dr [REDACTED: personal name],

Yes, each sample had its own furnace run, and the anneal times are in the recipe sheet of the report. The invoice annex will be prepared from the sheet by the group's administrator once the report is final. I do not think the report itself needs a separate line, but I will add one if you wish to see the total there.

Best regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.7 Message of 2026-06-12

**From:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** Clarification of clause 6.3

Dear Prof. [REDACTED: personal name],

You asked whether the 50000-count limit in clause 6.3 refers to raw or corrected intensity. It refers to the corrected intensity, that is, the raw counts multiplied by the daily factor. I attach the clarified wording; the FWHM limit is unchanged at 24.0 nm.

Please also keep in mind that the product line name must not appear in any document that leaves the laboratory other than the report addressed to us.

Kind regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.8 Message of 2026-06-17

**From:** [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]; [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** Measurements complete

Dear Professor, dear colleague,

The last measurements were taken yesterday. All raw values are in the sheet. I have saved the instrument exports in the campaign folder, and the quality check can start. Please note that on 2026-06-15 the thickness of one sample was re-measured because the first scan crossed a particle; the re-measured value is the one in the sheet.

Best regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.9 Message of 2026-06-19

**From:** [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** RE: Measurements complete

Dear Professor,

The comparison between the sheet and the exports is finished. I found two transcription errors, which have been corrected (see the deviations log). The calibration table is consistent with the lamp readings. The data set is released for evaluation.

Regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.10 Message of 2026-06-23

**From:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** Draft report CMC-2026-07

Dear Dr [REDACTED: personal name],

The draft report is attached. It gives the sample-level decisions according to clause 6.3 and leaves the recipe-level recommendation to your process engineers, as agreed. Please let me know by 2026-06-26 if you have comments, so that the final report can be issued by the contractual date.

Best regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

### 9.11 Message of 2026-06-25

**From:** Dr [REDACTED: personal name]
**To:** Prof. [REDACTED: personal name]
**Subject:** RE: Draft report CMC-2026-07

Dear Prof. [REDACTED: personal name],

Thank you for the draft. We have no scientific comments. We would only ask that the thickness column carry the unit in its header, which it already does, and that the sample log keep the operator for each measurement. Please issue the final version.

Kind regards,
[REDACTED: personal name]

---

## 10. Discussion

### 10.1 General observations

The raw PL spectra of all twelve samples show a single dominant emission band in the green, with peak positions between about 530 nm and 548 nm. The band is broader and shifted to longer wavelength for the samples of one group of recipes and narrower and shifted to shorter wavelength for another; the numerical values are in section 6.1 and need no commentary here. The thickness values lie between about 400 nm and 520 nm and tend to increase with the peak position.

The repeatability of the raw intensity (about 1.5 %) is small compared with the spread between samples, so most differences between samples of different recipes are real. The differences between raw intensities of samples of the same recipe reach up to about twenty per cent, which is larger than the repeatability and indicates a round-to-round variation of the growth process. The laboratory suggests that the control-sample approach proposed in the correspondence of 2026-05-04 be revisited in the follow-up contract, since the Partner has indicated that control samples may then be reported.

### 10.2 Effect of the daily calibration

The daily factor changes the intensities by a few per cent between days. Because the three samples of each recipe were distributed over different measurement days, a comparison of recipes on raw counts mixes real differences with day-to-day detector differences. This is why the Partner's specification applies its intensity limit to corrected counts. Readers who want to rank recipes should work with the corrected intensities obtained from the rule in section 7.1 and the table in section 7.2, and should keep in mind the repeatability quoted in section 6.2.

### 10.3 Peak position and FWHM

The peak position moves monotonically with the sequence of recipe codes only approximately: recipe R-D lies between R-A and R-B in peak position, not after R-C. The FWHM is lowest for one of the recipes and highest for another, and the spread of the FWHM within a recipe is small, between 0.9 nm and 1.4 nm in all four recipes. The FWHM criterion of the specification (24.0 nm) therefore separates recipes more than samples.

### 10.4 Thickness

The thickness is not part of the acceptance decision but the Partner uses it for a pilot-line estimate of material consumption. The film thickness varies by about 120 nm over the twelve samples. The thickest film was measured on the day of the third measurement block, and the thinnest on the second day. Within a recipe, the thickness spread between the three samples lies between 13 nm and 23 nm, which is two to four times the repeatability.

### 10.5 Storage interval

As noted in section 3.2, the interval between growth and measurement ranges over a few weeks. The laboratory did not observe a systematic dependence of the raw intensity on this interval. With only twelve samples, a dependence smaller than a few per cent could not be detected, and the question is left for the follow-up contract.

### 10.6 Limits of the evaluation

The evaluation is limited to the twelve samples. It says nothing about the reproducibility of a recipe beyond the three samples per recipe, nor about the behaviour of the films under conditions other than the ambient storage in nitrogen. The Partner's decision about which recipe to transfer should take these limits into account.

---

## 11. Deviations log

| No. | Date | Entry |
|---|---|---|
| D1 | 2026-05-19 | The furnace door seal was replaced between the two anneals of the day; the second anneal started 40 minutes later than planned. No effect on the plateau parameters was observed. |
| D2 | 2026-05-26 | A cooling-water alarm interrupted the ramp for about five minutes during the second anneal of the day. The ramp was resumed from the interruption point. The sample was kept in the campaign. |
| D3 | 2026-06-08 | The laser power reading drifted by 0.2 mW during the morning; the power was re-adjusted to 5.0 mW before the first sample. |
| D4 | 2026-06-15 | One thickness scan was repeated because it crossed a particle (see message of 2026-06-17). |
| D5 | 2026-06-19 | Two transcription errors in the shared sheet (a digit swap in one FWHM and a missing decimal in one peak position) were corrected against the instrument exports. |
| D6 | 2026-06-23 | The sample log column "operator" was added to the report at the request of the quality officer. |

---

## Annex A — Instrument description

### A.1 PL station

The PL station consists of a 405 nm diode laser with a variable attenuator, a long-pass filter at the collection side, a lens pair that images the sample onto a multimode fibre, a grating spectrometer with a thermoelectrically cooled CCD detector, and a computer for acquisition. The sample is held by a vacuum chuck on a motorised translation platform with 10 µm resolution. The laser incidence angle is 30 degrees from the surface normal, and the collection axis is along the normal.

### A.2 Spectrometer and detector

The spectrometer has a focal length of 320 mm and a grating of 600 lines per millimetre blazed at 500 nm. The CCD is cooled to −60 °C during the measurements. The dark signal is recorded with the entrance shutter closed immediately before each measurement day. The detector's nominal responsivity is used as the normalisation point for the daily factor.

### A.3 Excitation

The laser power at the sample is measured with a calibrated power meter before the first sample of each day and is adjusted by the attenuator. The beam is cleaned by an aperture and a short-pass filter before reaching the sample. The spot diameter was measured with a knife-edge method.

### A.4 Profilometer

The stylus profilometer has a tip radius of 2 µm and a stylus force of 1 mg. The vertical resolution is 1 nm over a measurement range of 6.5 µm. The step standard used for the daily check is certified to a nominal height with a stated uncertainty, and the certificate is held by the quality officer.

### A.5 Reference lamp

The reference lamp is a calibrated halogen lamp with a stabilised power supply. It is used with a diffuser at the sample position. The certificate gives the spectral output at a set of wavelengths; the reference wavelength used for the daily factor is near the middle of the PL emission band. The lamp's operating current is checked on the power supply display before each use.

### A.6 Data acquisition software

The acquisition software stores each spectrum as a text file with the settings in a header. The dark subtraction, averaging and peak analysis are performed by a script that reads these files; the script has been version-controlled since the start of the campaign. The raw peak intensity is the value before any response correction. The script does not apply the daily factor; the factor is applied afterwards in the evaluation spreadsheet so that the raw and corrected values can be compared.

---

## Annex B — Quality checklist used for the data release

1. Every sample ID in the sample log appears exactly once in the raw results table.
2. Every recipe code in the raw results table matches the recipe code in the sample log.
3. Every measurement date in the raw results table matches the measurement date in the sample log.
4. A calibration factor exists for every measurement date that occurs in the sample log.
5. The units are stated in every column header.
6. The raw values equal the instrument exports.
7. The raw results table contains no corrected values.
8. The acceptance criterion in the report is identical to the clarified wording of the specification.
9. The report version number and the issue date are on the cover.

All nine items were checked by the quality officer on 2026-06-19 for the data release and again on 2026-06-26 for the issue of the final report.

---

## Annex C — Instrument service and maintenance notes

The PL station had its annual service in January 2026. The service covered the cleaning of the optical surfaces, the check of the grating alignment, the replacement of the fibre ferrule and the verification of the CCD cooling. The reference lamp was calibrated by the accredited laboratory in the same month. The profilometer had its annual service in February 2026. The furnace had its heating elements inspected in April 2026 and its door seal replaced during the campaign (deviation D1).

The laboratory keeps a logbook for each instrument. The logbook of the PL station records every change of the excitation conditions, every realignment of the fibre and every detector warm-up. During the campaign there was no realignment of the fibre. The detector was warmed up once, on the weekend between the first and the second measurement block, because of a planned electrical shutdown in the building. After the restart, the detector reached its operating temperature within the usual time and the dark level was found to be the same as before.

---

## Annex D — Glossary of quantities

**Raw peak intensity.** The maximum of the dark-subtracted, averaged PL spectrum in counts, before the daily correction.

**Corrected intensity.** The raw peak intensity multiplied by the correction factor of the measurement day (section 7.1).

**Peak position.** The wavelength of the maximum of the PL band in nm.

**FWHM.** The full width of the PL band at half of its maximum, in nm.

**Film thickness.** The mean step height of the film on the witness step, in nm.

**Growth date.** The date on which the sample was coated and annealed.

**Measurement date.** The date on which the PL and thickness measurements were made; it determines which daily factor applies.

**Recipe code.** The letter code R-A … R-D that identifies a growth recipe without revealing its parameters; the parameters are in the recipe sheet of section 4.

**Plateau time.** The time during which the furnace thermocouple stayed at the anneal temperature; it is the anneal time of the recipe sheet.

---

## Annex E — Distribution list and document control

| Copy | Recipient | Content |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [REDACTED: partner identity], technical contact | full report |
| 2 | Principal investigator | full report |
| 3 | Laboratory quality officer | full report and exports |
| 4 | Group archive | full report, sealed |

The report is controlled by the quality officer. Changes after the final issue require a new version number and a note in the document control table. Version 1.0 was the draft of 2026-06-23, version 1.1 added the clarification of section 8.3, and version 1.2 is the final report of 2026-06-26.

=== QUESTIONS ===

Q1: What is the anneal temperature, in °C, of the recipe whose three samples have the highest mean raw PL peak intensity?
Q2: What is the mean raw PL peak intensity, in counts to 0.1, of the three R-B samples?
Q3: What is the corrected PL peak intensity of sample S-06, in counts rounded to the nearest whole count?
Q4: Among the samples measured on 2026-06-15, which sample has the largest film thickness?
Q5: How many of the twelve samples satisfy the Partner's acceptance criterion?
Q6: By how many nm (to 0.1) is the peak position of S-03 longer than that of S-01?
Q7: What is the precursor ratio of the recipe whose three samples have the narrowest mean FWHM?
Q8: How many samples were measured more than 14 days after their growth date?
Q9: Which measurement day has the largest correction factor (give the date as YYYY-MM-DD)?
Q10: What is the mean film thickness, in nm to 0.01, of the samples grown on 2026-05-25 or later?
Q11: What is the name of the company for which the campaign was run?
Q12: What is the mean FWHM, in nm to 0.01, of the recipe whose three samples have the longest mean peak position?
Q13: Among the samples that satisfy the acceptance criterion, which has the highest corrected intensity?
Q14: What is the total plateau time, in minutes, of the furnace runs for all twelve samples, if every sample had one anneal of its recipe's anneal time?
Q15: By how many nm does the thickest R-D film exceed the thinnest R-A film?
Q16: Who operated the measurement of the sample with the largest corrected PL peak intensity among all twelve samples?
Q17: What is the mean anneal temperature, in °C to 0.1, of the samples that satisfy the acceptance criterion (one value per sample, so a recipe counts once per passing sample)?
Q18: How many samples would satisfy the criterion's two limits if the intensity limit were applied to raw counts instead of corrected counts?
Q19: By how many counts, rounded to the nearest whole count, is the corrected intensity of S-10 higher than that of S-02?
Q20: What is the total anneal time, in minutes, of the recipes used for the samples measured on 2026-06-16 (one anneal per sample)?
