Solution
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.
The problem
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.
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.
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
How it works
Load batch records, SOPs, deviation reports, and lab data — scanned or digital.
Build the batch genealogy: which lots, materials, and process steps fed the batch under investigation.
Compare executed records against the governing SOPs to spot deviations and undocumented steps.
Correlate manufacturing and lab data across batches to isolate where the process drifted.
Assemble a source-cited investigation file ready for QA review and approval.
Who it's for
MSAT investigator
Head of quality
QA & regulatory affairs
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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