QA automation
Every finding,
grounded in evidence.
Connect protocols and SOPs to the study record. Assess the available evidence, make gaps explicit, and prepare findings and remediation for your quality team to review.
Discuss your workflowRequirements grounded in your procedures.
Select a requirement to inspect its source and evidence coverage.
Reviewed requirements
| Requirement | Coverage |
|---|---|
| Full | |
| Partial | |
| Partial |
Coverage reflects the supplied study records. Evidence gaps remain explicit and reviewable.
Governing requirements
Turn the procedure into a reviewable requirement.
Identify testable obligations in protocols and SOPs, with the governing passage attached. Review the requirement and the evidence expected to satisfy it before assessing the study record.
A closure requirement can ask for a reviewer, a verification date, and supporting evidence. Make each expectation explicit and keep its source version in reach.
Before an action is closed, a designated reviewer must verify the correction and record the supporting evidence and review date.
SOP-QA-04 · §5.3Evidence assessment
See what is supported. Understand what is missing.
Compare the requirement with supplied study records. Bring the observed activity, evidence found, and remaining gaps into one assessment, with full, partial, or missing coverage made clear.
An action marked complete may still lack verification evidence. The assessment distinguishes the supplied record from the conclusion your team can defensibly draw.
Reviewer, review date, and supporting evidence are not established by the supplied record.
Finding preparation
Give QA a stronger starting point.
Prepare a draft finding with the governing requirement, supporting evidence, and proposed remediation. Help the reviewer move from a detected gap to a clear next step.
Your quality team can request additional records, refine the interpretation, and determine the final finding and remediation. The evidence stays connected throughout.
The action is marked complete. The record does not establish the reviewer, review date, or evidence used to verify the correction.
Action history · item 12Request the named reviewer, date, and supporting evidence before assessing closure.
The finding stays a draft until the evidence is assessed.
The Panoptive foundation
Connected to the rest of your study.
Protocols, SOPs, supplied records, and earlier findings connect through a shared clinical data foundation. Each assessment keeps the governing requirements and supporting study context together.
Explore the shared foundationAccountable execution
Draft findings. Final judgment stays with QA.
Agents assess the supplied record and prepare findings. Your quality team reviews the context, requests additional evidence, and determines the final assessment. A missing record is a reason to investigate, not proof that an activity never happened.
Security and data protectionReviewed requirements
Keep obligations connected to their governing protocol or SOP.
Evidence citations
Inspect the source records and the basis for each assessment.
Human finalization
Refine draft findings and remediation before the team adopts them.
See it with
your workflow.
Talk with our team about the sources, decisions, and reviews behind your study.
Talk to our team