Audits are not failed on the quality of your work
They are failed on whether you can prove it. The work gets done. The evidence just is not kept in a form anyone can inspect.
Fragmented
SOPs in SharePoint, approvals in email, training in a spreadsheet.
Unversioned
Nobody is sure which revision is current until someone notices it was not.
Unprovable
The record exists. The trail of who changed what, when, and on whose authority does not.
Rebuilt each audit
Weeks spent reconstructing evidence that should have been a by-product of the work.
A compliance officer that reads the regulators, so your SOPs never drift unnoticed
Every eQMS stores your documents. Ours watches EMA, MHRA, EUR-Lex, ICH and the harmonised-standards lists, maps each change onto your live documents, and hands QA a finding with the gap, the clause and a suggested edit. Nothing is marked compliant by a machine: the finding becomes a change request or a new version, approved by a person, on the audit trail.
Watches the sources you actually open
EMA, MHRA, EUR-Lex, EudraLex Volume 4, ICH Q-series, PIC/S, the EU harmonised and UK designated standards lists.
Finds the drift
Each regulator change is run against your controlled documents. A finding names the document, the gap, the severity and its confidence.
Never invents a clause
A citation is only shown if the text was retrieved from a source we are allowed to read for you. No retrieval, no citation.
Acts inside the record
Accept a finding and it becomes a change request or a new document version. Reject or defer it and the decision is on the trail.
Put your name to it
We are taking a small number of first customers so onboarding is done properly.