Skip to main content
GxP change control is about more than recording an approved ticket. For any change that can alter a validated process or computerized system, the executing system must know whether this exact change, by this actor, against this system and version, is currently authorized. AtlaSent’s authorization architecture can provide this decision boundary. A policy template or a simulated evaluation is not evidence that a particular MES, LIMS, ERP, or production system is protected. The actual execution system must be integrated and acceptance-tested.
Integration and validation boundary. This page describes a proposed GxP control pattern, not a qualified or GxP-validated deployment. A customer-specific regulated use requires appropriate QA/validation oversight, system risk assessment, change control, qualification, and proof that unauthorized execution cannot bypass the accepted gate.

Explore GMP control scenarios

See the synthetic batch-release, data-integrity, and process-control scenarios and their limits.

Request a GMP demonstration

Bring one controlled action and discuss the exact execution boundary.

​
Requirement-to-control design

The references below inform a qualified organization’s intended-use analysis; the mapping is not a certification or compliance determination.

​
Illustration: a proposed system change

This is an illustrative context shape, not a copy-and-paste request guaranteed to match the deployed API or a released policy pack.
Do not take an approval field supplied by the requesting actor on trust. The enforcing design must resolve or independently verify required facts from the authoritative quality/change system.

​
Acceptance criteria for an enforcing implementation

  1. Locate the native action. Identify where the target system commits the change; evaluating a form submission alone may leave alternate paths open.
  2. Bind the request. Include the exact target, version or content digest, authorized actor, and appropriate change evidence.
  3. Evaluate fresh authority. Resolve quality approvals, identity, responsibilities, training and relevant version/currentness from authoritative sources.
  4. Verify the permit before execution. A deny, hold, timeout, mismatch, expired or replayed permit must leave the protected effect unreachable on the accepted path.
  5. Prove the outcome separately. Record the determination and execution-point check; establish the system’s applied state by native readback rather than inferring success from an authorization decision.
  6. Test bypass and failure conditions. Demonstrate behavior for alternate callers, retries, change mutations, stale approvers, unavailable facts, and service outages.
  7. Complete customer validation. The customer decides whether the controls and evidence are adequate for their intended regulated use, with qualified QA/validation approval.
An integration that cannot intercept the actual side effect is observe-only. It can support later review and reconciliation, but it cannot honestly claim to prevent an unauthorized change.

​
Explore and discuss

Start with GMP control scenarios, then 21 CFR Part 11, EU GMP Annex 11, and published compliance status. To scope a specific execution boundary, request a GMP control demonstration.