Skip to content
Document contents qmsWrapper Technical Overview
  1. 1 Architecture & Module Map
  2. 2 Foundation Layer
  3. 3 Design-Cycle Layer
  4. 4 Post-Market Layer
  5. 5 Governance Layer
  6. 6 Cross-Cutting AI Capabilities
  7. 7 What Each Actor Sees
  8. 8 Why This Architecture
  9. 9 Glossary

qmsWrapper Technical Overview · Chapter 1 of 9

Architecture & Module Map

1. The Problem Each Module Solves

ModuleProblem solved (one line)
QES (Quality Event System)Quality signals lost in email and chat before reaching CAPA.
Document ControlDocuments drift in network folders; revisions unsigned; effective dates slip.
Approval Engine + e-signatureEmail approvals do not satisfy 21 CFR Part 11.
Audit Trail"Who changed this and why" — the most asked auditor question.
Project ManagementDevices, teams, milestones scattered across tools.
User / Role / Permission / OrganisationMulti-tenant SaaS with regulator-grade isolation.
Notification + TodoRegulatory deadlines and approval queues do not announce themselves.
Scheduled job frameworkPeriodic regulatory work running unattended.
Technical File (hardware)MDR Annex II demands a structured TF; SMEs put it in folders.
SaMD Technical FileHardware TF tab structure collapses for Software-as-a-Medical-Device.
Master Technical File (MTF)Static documents around the design matrix (Plans, GSPR, NB certs, DoCs, IFU master) drift.
UDI RegistryMDR Art. 27 and FDA UDI Rule require structured UDI; EUDAMED needs it post-28-May-2026.
Traceability MatrixRequirements ↔ Risks ↔ Design ↔ Tests scattered across documents.
Risk Management (ISO 14971)A Risk Management File chained from hazards through controls to verification.
TrainingISO 13485 §6.2 demands documented competence evidence.
CAPAISO 13485 §8.5.2 + FDA 21 CFR 820.100 require structured CAPA.
VigilanceMDR Art. 87–92 + FDA 21 CFR 803/806 impose strict reporting clocks.
EUDAMED ComplianceThe 28 May 2026 + Q3 2026 EUDAMED deadlines are hard.
Management & AuditISO 13485 §5.6 management review + §8.2.3 internal audit scattered across spreadsheets.
AI GovernanceEU AI Act + FDA SaMD + IEC 42001 demand per-AI-system lifecycle evidence.
SupplierMDR Annex II §5 + 21 CFR 820.50 + ISO 13485 §7.4 demand controlled supplier management.
CybersecurityISO 27001 + SOC-2 + FDA Sept-2023 cyber + MDR §17 demand structured cyber evidence.
Change-Management AIThe regulatory ripple of any change — forgotten ripples = #1 audit-finding cause.
Regulatory Health Score"Can we sell tomorrow?" — one number per device per regulator.
Smart Impact MapperThe AI engine behind Change-Management AI; 11 nodes; HITL by design.
AI Findings Inbox + HITLOne queue where every AI proposal is approved by a PIN-signing human.

1.5 Wrapper’s Architecture, in Plain English

Wrapper is a log-based electronic QMS. Every regulated artefact — a complaint, a corrective action, a training assignment, a risk evaluation, a design output, a supplier qualification, an AI dataset card — is a row in a Log, not a folder of files.

Every row in every Log follows a structured lifecycle: Draft → In Review → Approved / Effective → (optionally) Superseded or Retired. Transitions are guarded by an Approval engine that captures electronic signatures meeting FDA 21 CFR Part 11 (PIN-validated, with a controlled-vocabulary "meaning" — Approve, Acknowledge, Sign-as-Author) and writes them to a tamper-evident, INSERT-only signature ledger. A separate Audit Trail records who did what, when, and why, on every object mutation.

Underneath the regulated logs runs an AI Findings inbox: a polymorphic queue of AI-proposed regulatory actions where a human reviewer must approve each item before it takes effect — the EU AI Act Art. 14 Human-in-the-Loop contract made operational. AI assistants never autonomously close regulated records; they propose, humans dispose.

Cross-cutting, the Change-Management AI watches every change and evaluates a rules table (90+ rules across four families). When a rule fires, it writes structured findings into the AI Findings inbox listing the documents to review, the tests to re-run, the certificates to re-issue, and the regulator obligations triggered. Closure of follow-up tasks rolls back into the Regulatory Health Score — a deterministic 0–100 number per device per regulator.

Frequently asked questions

Is qmsWrapper a document-based or a log-based QMS?

qmsWrapper is a log-based electronic QMS. Every regulated artefact, such as a complaint, a corrective action, a training assignment, a risk evaluation, a design output or a supplier qualification, is a row in a Log, not a folder of files. Every row follows a structured lifecycle from Draft to In Review to Approved, then optionally Superseded or Retired.

How does qmsWrapper stop AI from autonomously changing regulated records?

An AI Findings inbox sits beneath the regulated logs: a queue of AI-proposed regulatory actions where a human reviewer must approve each item before it takes effect. This is the EU AI Act Article 14 human-in-the-loop contract made operational. AI assistants never autonomously close regulated records; they propose, humans dispose.

How does qmsWrapper handle the ripple effects of a change?

The Change-Management AI watches every change and evaluates a rules table of more than 90 rules across four families. When a rule fires it writes structured findings into the AI Findings inbox listing the documents to review, the tests to re-run, the certificates to re-issue and the regulator obligations triggered. Closing those tasks rolls back into the Regulatory Health Score.

On this page

On this page