
Feature|Articles|August 25, 2026
Inspection Readiness Is Not a Pre-Inspection Activity, It's an Execution Design Condition
Author(s)Elizabeth Walsh, PMP, ACRP-CP
Inspection readiness reflects how a program was actually run throughout its lifecycle, not what can be assembled at the end, making pre-submission remediation itself a signal of absent oversight rather than proof of it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Inspection readiness is often understood as something that intensifies at the end. A pre-submission push. A final trial master file (TMF) review. A concentrated effort to confirm that everything is in order before an inspector arrives. For some organizations, it is the first time the question is asked with any urgency. That late urgency reveals the assumption behind it: that readiness can be assembled when it is needed. The review is sound practice. The assumption is not.
Related to this article

Mixed FSP and FSO models are gaining ground as sponsors seek agility and resource flexibility, but the oversight infrastructure, audit trails, and accountability structures needed to run them well and survive regulatory inspection are consistently lagging behind the model itself.

Sponsor oversight of outsourced CRO work is often robust in practice but fails inspection because oversight decisions are fragmented across systems and lack an audit trail, requiring sponsors to document oversight as a connected operating system with clear decision records, escalation pathways, and issue resolution from start to finish.

Cell and gene therapy access expands into community care settings only when operational coordination, site readiness, and supply chain standardization become first-order priorities equivalent to manufacturing capacity, requiring standardized processes, digital integration, and distributed logistics networks.

Most AI pilots in drug development fail not from poor technology but from lack of strategic prioritization, organizational readiness, integrated data infrastructure, and disciplined governance, making success dependent on business discipline rather than technical capability.

A new request for information asks for comments on dose selection, safety monitoring, eligibility criteria, and oversight approaches to support the responsible development of ibogaine drug products.

The new effort combines adaptive platform trial design, AI-enabled site activation, nationwide data infrastructure, and patient data contribution tools to reduce timelines, costs, and patient burden across clinical development.

In this video interview, Claire Riches, VP of clinical solutions at Citeline, explains how AI is shifting trial risk management from reactive to proactive—enabling sponsors to pressure-test protocols and anticipate pivots before a single patient is enrolled.
Advertisement
Advertisement

