Solution

Process Investigation Automation

For MSAT and quality teams in pharma manufacturing: batch genealogy, SOP conformance checks, and cross-batch data analysis assembled into a source-cited investigation file.

Batch recordsSOPsDeviation reportsLab dataCAPA files
Every finding cites the batch recordEvery analysis step logged as it runsInvestigators approve every conclusion

The problem

Why this exists

Quarantine

Product waits while teams read

When a batch deviates, product sits in quarantine while MSAT reconstructs what happened from batch records, SOPs, deviation logs, and lab data scattered across systems.

Weeks

Tracing lineage by hand

Working out which lots, intermediates, and equipment fed a suspect batch — and which other batches share that lineage — is a manual exercise across paper and PDF records.

Page 214

Deviations buried in executed records

Missed steps and undocumented interventions hide deep inside executed batch records. Whether a reviewer catches them depends on stamina, not process.

The product, not a promise

An investigation file you can defend

Process Investigation Automation — workspace
Batch genealogyLots, intermediates, equipment, shared lineagecited
SOP conformanceExecuted record vs. governing procedurecited
Cross-batch parameter trendDrift isolated to a process stepcited
Lab data correlationResults mapped to affected batchescited
Undocumented intervention in executed record — flagged for investigator reviewverify
HUMAN-APPROVED BEFORE IT POSTS

How it works

File in. Answer out.

  1. 1

    Ingest

    Load batch records, SOPs, deviation reports, and lab data — scanned or digital.

  2. 2

    Trace

    Build the batch genealogy: which lots, materials, and process steps fed the batch under investigation.

  3. 3

    Check

    Compare executed records against the governing SOPs to spot deviations and undocumented steps.

  4. 4

    Analyze

    Correlate manufacturing and lab data across batches to isolate where the process drifted.

  5. 5

    Report

    Assemble a source-cited investigation file ready for QA review and approval.

Who it's for

Built for the people who own the outcome

MSAT investigator

Starts from assembled evidence instead of document archaeology.

  • Genealogy of the suspect batch built automatically, shared lineage included
  • SOP deviations arrive as flagged findings with the page attached
  • Cross-batch parameter drift visible without manual data pulls

Head of quality

Shorter quarantines, investigations that run the same way twice.

  • Blast radius of a suspect lot known in hours, not weeks
  • Consistent method across every investigation and site
  • Root-cause work gets the time document hunting used to take

QA & regulatory affairs

A record that reads the way auditors expect.

  • Every finding linked to the batch record, SOP, or lab page behind it
  • Every analysis step logged as it runs
  • Conclusions approved by named investigators, never auto-closed
Pharmaceutical manufacturingBiologicsAPI manufacturersCDMOsSterile fill-finishMedical devices
Hoursto map a suspect lot's blast radius
Source-linkedevery finding cites the batch record
End-to-endMSAT investigation workflow covered
Human-reviewedinvestigators approve every conclusion

When a batch deviates, the clock starts. Product waits in quarantine while MSAT and quality teams reconstruct what happened from batch records, SOPs, deviation logs, and lab data — much of it scanned, none of it in one place. The investigation becomes document archaeology; the root-cause thinking gets whatever time is left.

Genealogy, SOP checks, and data analysis in one pass

The platform ingests the full investigation corpus — executed batch records, the SOPs that governed them, deviation reports, and lab results — regardless of format. From it, the batch genealogy builds automatically: which raw material lots, intermediates, equipment, and process steps fed the batch in question, and which other batches share that lineage. Tracing the blast radius of a suspect lot drops from a week-long exercise to a query.

Executed records are then checked against their governing SOPs, so missed steps, out-of-sequence operations, and undocumented interventions surface as flagged findings rather than things a reviewer might catch on page 214. Manufacturing and lab data correlate across batches, making visible where a parameter drifted and which batches it touched — the raw material of a defensible root cause.

Built for a regulated record

A pharma investigation file has one audience that matters most: the next auditor. Every finding links to the exact page of the batch record, SOP, or lab report that supports it, and every analysis step is logged. Investigators and QA reviewers approve each conclusion — the platform assembles evidence; people close investigations. The result is document-to-decision work at manufacturing speed: faster approvals, shorter quarantines, and an investigation record that reads the way regulators expect because it was built that way from the first page.

Objections, answered

What teams ask us first

How do I trust an automated finding?

Every finding links to the exact page of the batch record, SOP, or lab report that supports it, and every analysis step is logged. Investigators verify by clicking through to the source, and only a named reviewer can confirm a finding into the file.

Our records are scanned paper and our SOPs are ours. Does that work?

Yes. The platform reads executed records scanned or digital, and checks them against your SOPs — the revision in force at execution, not the current one. Your procedures define conformance; the system applies them consistently.

Can we use this in a GxP environment?

The record is built for that audience: every step logged, every finding cited, every conclusion carrying a named approver. It deploys in private cloud or on-prem so batch records never leave your environment, and the audit trail is inspectable end to end.

How do we get started?

Most teams start by rerunning a closed investigation: load the records, let the platform build the genealogy and findings, and compare its file against the one your team wrote. That comparison is the evaluation — on your data, against a known outcome.

Bring a closed investigation.

Watch the platform rebuild the genealogy, run the SOP checks, and surface the findings live — then compare its file with the one your team wrote.

Request a demo