Sometimes your field findings don't align with the lab results, it really do happen. It’s essential to reassess and evaluate your methodology against your sampling points. Ensure that field and lab techniques were executed consistently. Check for possible errors that were overlooked. Verify protocols or QAQC against the Lab results if there are anomalies and fish them out.

- consider the scale effect: testing a sample in lab and testing the soil/rock in their natural conditions at higher scale has a huge impact on final outcomes

1. Re-examine Data: Check for errors or inconsistencies. 2. Contextual Analysis: Ensure samples are comparable. 3. Consult Literature: Look for similar studies for insights. 4. Seek Expert Opinions: Discuss with colleagues or experts. 5. Document Everything: Clearly record discrepancies and reconciliation attempts. 6. Propose Hypotheses: Suggest reasons for discrepancies and further tests. 7. Update Methods: Refine methods for consistency.

I have experience, using Niton XRF for fresh outcrop samples and same samples in pulp size for lab analysis. It has different result between fresh samples and lab result. But the niton readings from pulp samples has 95%-97% accuracy. Lesson learning: 1. Type of samples collected 2. Sizing of the sample being analysed 3. Analysis method 4. Moisture (dry/wet samples) 5. Etc You have to mentioned those above in geological reports to reconcile the difference between analysis result. This will give you a materiality and transparance report and will not give the reader a bias/ambigu result.