Based on the structured records, batch 48 (exp-9076-048) is not marked as a clean pass — the records show a qualified outcome with a real defect.

What the records say:

• Outcome status is ok, basis: "Tested over pigment Black, Blue, Violet-23/27 etc All having matching resolubility while reduced gloss in violet" [LBN 48.pdf, pages 1-2].
• No application failure report exists for batch 48 in this drop, and no sample is flagged as a failure. But "no failure on record" ≠ a formal pass: the summary row carries no pass/fail verdict field, and each comparative test's verdict is null.
• The comparative trials (all trial 31.10.2025, NC-PU ink, vs that day's BYK-9076 standard) show mixed results [APP DATA- BYK 9076 equivalent.xlsx, sheet BYK_9076_equivalent, row 53]:
• Violet 23 — inferior vs that day's standard: Viscosity 30 sec (std 29), Gloss 53.3 (std 62), Colour Strength 98-99.00% (std 1), Resolubility 3 (std 4), Transparency Opaque (std "Ref as Std").
• Violet 27 — inferior on gloss: Gloss 4.6 vs 5.3 std; Resolubility 4; "Eq to Std" transparency.
• Black — equivalent on gloss/resolubility: Gloss 30.9 vs 31; Resolubility 4; "Eq to Std".
• Blue — equivalent: Gloss 34.8 vs 34; Resolubility 4; "Transparent".

So: matching resolubility in black, blue & violet 27, but reduced gloss in violet (and the Violet 23 run in particular is inferior vs the same-day standard). The record also carries a date conflict (Dec 25 2025 vs 26.6.25).

GAP: There is no formal pass/fail verdict or pass criterion for application testing in the records — only summary-table rows and the ELN narrative. So "pass" is the outcome status, but it is qualified, not a clean application-test pass.