traqx

Process validation · CPV

Process validation with end-to-end evidence logic.

Plan, protocol and report take shape along your process requirements — parameters, criteria and evidence visibly linked.

Relevant to EU-GMP Annex 15 and ICH Q8–Q10.

  • Justify criteria from sources.
  • Connect Stage 1 to 3 traceably.
  • Assessment stays with your team.

The full platform

Annex 15ICH Q8–Q10

Process validation lifecycleFDA 3-stage · ICH Q8–Q10

PROCESS LIFECYCLE · STAGE 1–3 ANNEX 15 · OPV Stage 1 Design CQA CPP Risk rationale Stage 2 PPQ PPQ protocol Sampling · criteria PPQ evidence Deviation? · review Stage 3 CPV State-of-control review CONTROL STRATEGY SPINEAssessment stays with your team QA / Process Owner review AUDIT-TRAIL who · what · when · source · why

Critical parameters derived from sources · each evidenced

Why process validation gets expensive later

It's not the process that costs you time. It's the missing source logic.

Process validation connects many layers: process understanding, parameters, sampling, acceptance criteria, deviations and reports. Without clear source logic, every change later becomes expensive — because no one can cleanly show anymore why a criterion was chosen that way and which evidence supports it.

01

Acceptance criteria without traceable origin

Why exactly this limit, this sampling scheme, this sample size? If the rationale lives only in heads or scattered across old reports, every question in review becomes a search task.

02

Plan, protocol and report drift apart

Validation plan, protocol and report repeat the same substance in several formats. Every inconsistency between them — a different parameter, a shifted criterion — is an audit finding in waiting.

03

Every change pulls an expensive wave behind it

If a critical parameter shifts, acceptance criteria, sampling and evidence have to be brought along. Without visible linkage it is easy to overlook what else is affected.

How traqx models your process validation

traqx builds up plan, protocol and report — along your process requirements.

traqx helps build validation plans, protocols, reports and evidence logic along your process and quality requirements. The core principle always stays the same: Policy → SOP → Template. No templates of your own yet? You start with our best-practice templates. Generate · Verify · Monitor, from process definition to approval logic.

Step 01 Define process, product family & validation model You set the frame: which process, which product family, which validation model. traqx pre-structures the validation plan on that basis — along your requirements, not from a generic template. Plan structure from versioned templates + your requirements
Step 02 Derive critical parameters & quality attributes from sources traqx derives critical process parameters and quality attributes from your sources — every suggestion stands alongside source-bound. You accept, change or reject; the origin stays clickably traceable. Every derived parameter evidenced — clickable source
Step 03 Prepare plan, protocol and report structure From the approved parameters traqx drafts the structure of plan, protocol and report — consistent with the source, not reinvented. For table blocks you see a row- and cell-level diff: what is added, removed, changed. Row-level diff for tabular blocks, evidenced against the source
Step 04 Link acceptance criteria and evidence visibly Every acceptance criterion is visibly linked to its evidence and its rationale source. A statement of regulatory relevance ends on a clickable source — an invented citation fails deterministically and is marked as unverified. Deterministic citation check: pass / fail
Step 05 Mark open assumptions and responsibilities What is still open stays visibly open: traqx marks unresolved assumptions and assigns responsibilities, instead of letting them sink into running text. The statistical assessment itself stays with the responsible team — traqx structures it, it does not decide it. Open assumptions marked · statistical assessment stays with the team
Step 06 Document review and approval logic Across all steps the audit trail records: who, what, when, on what basis. Review and approval logic are documented without gaps; the change history is append-only at the database level — it can be neither changed nor deleted. The final QA decision stays with the responsible team. Change history append-only · final QA approval with the team

Why this holds up in an audit

The AI drafts. You own it.

The AI output is never silently written into a validated dataset. Until you approve it, every suggestion stays a suggestion — and only your confirmation makes a dataset true.

Generate A suggestion stays a suggestion Derived parameters and criteria live as pending suggestions on the block they belong to. The stored content stays unchanged until a human acts — no unattended protocol fills itself.
Verify Approval with mandatory rationale Every acceptance or rejection of an acceptance criterion is an attributed, audited decision. A rejection marked as requiring a rationale demands a typed reason — the reason is recorded with the decision.
Monitor Source-bound, not freely invented Retrieval reach is limited to your approved source pool. Every citation is checked deterministically against this pool; an invented source is surfaced as a warning, not output as truth.

By construction

What a process validation structurally safeguards.

Acceptance criteria

source-bound

From parameter to report, every criterion carries its source and its evidence — clickably traceable, confirmed by a human. Better traceability between process knowledge, criterion and documented decision.

1 N

evidence linkage

One process parameter, linked through from the source via the acceptance criterion to the evidence in the report. If the parameter changes, what needs to be brought along becomes visible — instead of catching up expensively later.

0

silent AI writes

No derived parameter and no criterion lands without human approval in the dataset. By construction — not by discipline. So you go into QA review and inspection better prepared.

Available today when customer-side process requirements and templates are in place. Statistical assessment and final QA decision stay with the responsible team. We publish real time or cost effects only with robust pilot or case-study data.

Questions from practice

Common questions on process validation & CPV

What is Continued Process Verification (CPV)?

Stage 3 of FDA process validation: the ongoing, documented evidence that the process remains in its validated state — via trends of critical quality attributes and process parameters, assessments and periodic reports. CPV does not end while the process runs.

How do process validation and CPV differ?

Process validation (Stage 1: process design, Stage 2: process qualification) initially evidences that the process is under control. CPV (Stage 3) maintains that evidence in routine operation. Both belong to one lifecycle — treated separately, they create exactly the gaps inspectors find.

Which data belongs in a CPV programme?

Critical quality attributes (CQA) and critical process parameters (CPP), their trend analyses, deviations and actions, and periodic assessment reports. The connection is what counts: from measurement through assessment to the approved report.

Can CPV documentation be automated?

The drafting, yes: AI creates report drafts from controlled data sources, every statement source-bound. Assessment, decision and approval remain attributable to your team — what gets automated is the assembly, not the responsibility.

More disciplines

One platform, many use cases.

Same trust architecture — sources first, AI as a suggestion, human decides, audit trail stays — across every GxP discipline.

Security & standards · built for traceable evidence

Made in Germany GDPR-compliant · EU-hosted No model training on your data
Built forGAMP 5EU-GMP Annex 1121 CFR Part 11ALCOA+
MembershipsISPEPDAGQMA

Founded by CSV experts with 15+ years of domain expertise

Live demo · 1 real process · clearly scoped

Start with one process.

Bring a real process validation along to the demo — one process, one product family, exactly the source logic that is missing today. First structured drafts (plan, critical parameters, acceptance criteria) appear early in the first process; we set concrete time targets together before the start.

No sales pitch — a short conversation around your concrete process validation scope. We define success criteria in writing before the start; the documented assessment is yours even if you say no afterwards. EU-hosted, no model training, source room deleted on request with evidence.

We take a full 30 minutes per demo · slots in order of arrival