What this case does and does not tell you

What the evidence supports: the analytic path identified, aspirated, reacted, detected, calculated, and applied flags as designed; QC passed and calibration was current. The delta check then caused autoverification to hold the 6.8 mmol/L result for manual review. None of those checks establishes whether 6.8 mmol/L is the patient's true potassium concentration, because they do not evaluate specimen integrity before the specimen reached the analyzer.

What the evidence does not support: treating a passing QC run as proof that every specimen measured in that run is trustworthy, mathematically correcting a hemolyzed result instead of repeating it from a fresh, properly collected specimen, or treating an autoverification hold as a released result. None of those claims follows from what autoverification and QC actually check.