Objective/Scope The rotating control device is an integral piece of equipment for managed pressure and underbalanced drilling applications. In 2005, a joint IADC/SPE committee, collaborating with American Petroleum Institute, authored specification guidelines first published as API-16 Specification RCD (API-16 RCD). Does applying a manufacturing specification as a control for operations really minimize risk, or does it limit liability? This paper will outline the journey toward API-16 RCD certification, gaps identified between testing results and operating guidelines, and methodology applied to field performance data to bridge test data with real-life performance expectations. Method/Procedure/Process Analysis of a large laboratory test data set has been accumulated for the API-16 RCD application process. Meanwhile, a much larger data set of field performance has been accumulated over several years from live operations throughout the world. In an effort to seek continuous performance improvement, interrogating the data to determine a proper base line for performance was initiated. It became apparent that determining this base line was challenging, given the wide range of variables. However, through systematic data analytics, along with improved field data capture guidelines, normalizing these variables enabled operating data to validate performance inferences drawn from the existing lab data. Results/Observations/Conclusions Several hundred field runs were compared against more than 50 independent lab tests to determine links. Through comprehensive data analysis, along with acknowledgement of the scientific limits understanding elastomer performance over conditions and time, RCD testing in the lab is better able to predict field performance, serving as a suitable alternative to costly fit-for-purpose field simulation testing. Additionally, this methodology better guides technology improvements required to expand performance criteria. Novel/Additive Information Replicating field conditions in controlled laboratory tests requires a significant range of variables beyond RPM, temperature and pressure. For example, field failures have resulted from chemical factors such as mud compatibility at a range of temperatures, or physical factors such as drillpipe condition and rig alignment. Some in industry view fit-for-purpose testing as a solution, but this can become cost prohibitive for service providers and operators alike. This paper will document viable alternatives.