What's on this page
The parallel-track problem
Every GxP-regulated software implementation runs two tracks. The build track delivers the system; the validation track delivers the regulatory evidence. They’re supposed to mirror each other. They almost never do.
The result is the validation rework problem — at audit time, the validation team discovers that the build moved faster than the documentation, and a six-week effort is needed to reconstruct evidence after the fact. This is also exactly the failure mode regulators flag most consistently.
PD collapses the two tracks. The build artifacts and the validation artifacts are the same artifacts. The phase gates and the IQ/OQ/PQ checkpoints are the same gates.
URS → FS → test scripts → trace matrix
The validation artifact graph has a well-known structure: user requirements specification, functional specification, design specification, test scripts, deviation reports, trace matrix. Done well, each artifact is linked to the artifacts it depends on.
PD models this graph natively. The URS is a working document. The FS is linked to it by requirement ID. The test scripts are linked to the FS. The deviation reports are linked to the test scripts. The trace matrix is generated automatically. There is no separate documentation effort.
GxP gap detection
The most common audit finding is an artifact-graph gap — a test script with no link to a requirement, an orphaned deviation, an unresolved change request. These gaps exist because nobody is continuously checking the graph.
PD checks continuously. The gap detection runs against the live artifact graph and surfaces missing links the moment they emerge. The validation team isn’t doing audit-time gap-hunting; the gaps were closed when they appeared.
IQ/OQ/PQ as phase gates
Installation Qualification, Operational Qualification, and Performance Qualification are not separate workstreams in PD’s Life Sciences template — they’re phase gates of the engagement itself. The engagement cannot advance past IQ until the IQ protocol is executed and signed off; same for OQ and PQ.
This structural constraint enforces the validation discipline that often slips when the build is under timeline pressure. The build cannot get ahead of the validation, because the validation is the gate.
Continued Validation after release
GxP doesn’t end at release. Continued Validation is an ongoing obligation: periodic reviews, change control, deviation management, training refresh, system retirement.
PD’s template treats Continued Validation as an open-ended phase. The artifact graph stays live; the change controls write to it; the periodic reviews are scheduled against it. The output is that your validated state doesn’t drift between audits — the next audit picks up where the last one left off.
Frequently asked questions
Does PD support electronic signatures for Part 11?
Yes — electronic signatures are a first-class artifact concept in the Life Sciences template, with the access controls, audit trail, and signature manifestation Part 11 requires.
Which Life Sciences systems is this template configured for?
LIMS, eTMF, CTMS, QMS — see the Life Sciences industry page for the supported platforms.
Can PD handle a paper-to-electronic transition?
Yes — paper-to-electronic is one of the most common Life Sciences scenarios. The template includes the validation considerations specific to that transition.
How does PD integrate with our QMS?
PD can integrate with MasterControl, Veeva Vault Quality, and similar QMS systems via API. Deviation reports, CAPAs, and change controls can flow bidirectionally.
What’s the audit response workflow?
PD’s artifact graph is the audit response. Auditors can be granted read-only access scoped to the relevant phase. The trace matrix, the deviation reports, and the signed-off protocols are all immediately accessible.