Computerised System Validation Plan: [System name]
Validation plan and record set for a computerised system used in a
GxP-regulated activity (good manufacturing, laboratory, clinical or
distribution practice) in the pharmaceutical, biotech or medical
device industry. It follows a risk-based, critical-thinking approach
in the spirit of computer software assurance (CSA), and maps to EU GMP
Annex 11 (Computerised Systems, revision of January 2011, in force;
a revised draft was consulted on from July to October 2025), US
21 CFR Part 11 (electronic records and electronic signatures), the
FDA final guidance on Computer Software Assurance for Production and
Quality Management System Software (February 2026), and the structure
of ISPE GAMP 5 Second Edition (July 2022), which is cited by name and
section only. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked
Example. This is a documentation format, not regulatory or legal
advice: follow your quality system, check the current official texts
and consult qualified quality and regulatory professionals.
Document control
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Document ID | [CSV-PLAN-001] |
| System name and version | [Example: Laboratory information management system, release 8.2] |
| System owner | [@system-owner] |
| Process owner | [@process-owner] |
| Quality assurance | [@qa-reviewer] |
| GxP area | [GMP / GLP / GCP / GDP / Medical device QMS] |
| Sites | [Sites using the system] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / In review / Approved / Superseded] |
| Approvers/reviewers | [@system-owner], [@process-owner], [@qa-reviewer], [@it-service-owner] |
| Classification | [Internal / Confidential] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
Approvals
| Role | Name | Signature meaning | Date |
|---|
| Process owner | [@name] | Approves intended use and acceptance | YYYY-MM-DD |
| System owner | [@name] | Approves technical approach | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Quality assurance | [@name] | Approves compliance with the quality system | YYYY-MM-DD |
Revision history
| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | First draft |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Example: Risk assessment updated after supplier audit |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Example: Approved for execution |
Contents
1. Intended use and system description
1.1 Intended use
[Example: The laboratory information management system records
sample receipt, test assignment, instrument results and result review
for release testing of finished product at the [Site] quality control
laboratory. Approved results are the basis for batch certification.
The system does not control instruments; chromatography data comes
from a separate validated system through an interface.]
1.2 System description
| ID | Item | Description |
|---|
| SYS-001 (Example) | Software | Commercial laboratory system, configured, with two custom reports |
| SYS-002 (Example) | Hosting | Supplier-hosted software as a service in a qualified cloud region |
| SYS-003 (Example) | Interfaces | Chromatography data system (results in), ERP (batch status out) |
| SYS-004 (Example) | Users | About 120 analysts, 15 reviewers, 4 administrators |
| SYS-005 (Example) | GxP records | Sample records, results, review and approval signatures, audit trail |
1.3 Context diagram
The diagram shows the system boundary used for this plan: components
inside the boundary are validated here; components outside are
validated or qualified under their own records.
2. Regulatory basis
| ID | Source | Status as checked | Applies because |
|---|
| REG-001 | EU GMP Guide (EudraLex Volume 4), Annex 11 Computerised Systems | Revision January 2011 in force; draft revision with revised Chapter 4 and a new Annex 22 on artificial intelligence was open for consultation from 7 July to 7 October 2025, final text not published as of October 2026 | Product released in the EU |
| REG-002 | EU GMP Guide, Chapter 4 Documentation | January 2011 version in force; revision in the same consultation | Records are GMP documents |
| REG-003 | 21 CFR Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures | Subpart A General provisions (11.1 to 11.3), Subpart B Electronic records (11.10 to 11.70), Subpart C Electronic signatures (11.100 to 11.300) | Records submitted to or required by FDA |
| REG-004 | FDA guidance, Computer Software Assurance for Production and Quality Management System Software | Final, February 2026, docket FDA-2022-D-0795 | Risk-based assurance approach for production and quality system software |
| REG-005 | 21 CFR Part 820, Quality Management System Regulation | Effective 2 February 2026 | Only if the system supports medical device quality processes |
| REG-006 | UK MHRA and PIC/S data integrity guidance | [Version checked] | Inspection expectations on data integrity |
| REG-007 | ISPE GAMP 5 Second Edition | July 2022, industry guidance, not law | Life cycle structure and terminology used by this plan |
- Annex 11 is organised as a Principle and 17 numbered clauses: General
(1 Risk management, 2 Personnel, 3 Suppliers and service providers),
Project phase (4 Validation) and Operational phase (5 Data, 6 Accuracy
checks, 7 Data storage, 8 Printouts, 9 Audit trails, 10 Change and
configuration management, 11 Periodic evaluation, 12 Security,
13 Incident management, 14 Electronic signature, 15 Batch release,
16 Business continuity, 17 Archiving). Section 9 of this plan maps
controls to these numbers.
- When the revised Annex 11 is published, record its effective date in
this table and re-assess section 9 against it.
- GAMP 5 is a paid publication. Official text: ISPE, purchase or
licensed access: https://ispe.org/publications/guidance-documents/gamp-5-guide-2nd-edition.
This plan cites its structure only.
3. GxP assessment and system categorisation
3.1 GxP assessment
| Question | Answer |
|---|
| Does the system create, change, store or report records required by GxP regulations? | [Yes / No, with explanation] |
| Does the system support a decision on product quality, patient safety or batch release? | [Yes / No] |
| Are records submitted to a regulator or available for inspection? | [Yes / No] |
| Are electronic signatures used in place of handwritten signatures? | [Yes / No] |
| Result | [GxP relevant / Not GxP relevant] |
3.2 Software category and function classification
GAMP 5 groups software by configurability: infrastructure software
(category 1), non-configured products (category 3), configured products
(category 4) and custom applications (category 5). The category helps
judge supplier evidence; risk, not category alone, sets the assurance
effort.
| ID | Function | Category | Direct GxP impact | Notes |
|---|
| FUN-001 (Example) | Result entry and calculation | 4 | Yes, high | Calculations configured by the laboratory |
| FUN-002 (Example) | Result review and approval with e-signature | 4 | Yes, high | Replaces handwritten signature |
| FUN-003 (Example) | Custom certificate of analysis report | 5 | Yes, high | Custom code |
| FUN-004 (Example) | Sample label printing | 3 | Indirect | Standard function |
| FUN-005 (Example) | Training calendar view | 3 | No | Not used for GxP decisions |
4. Risk assessment
Example method: severity (S), likelihood (L) and detectability (D)
are each scored 1 to 3 (for D, 3 means hard to detect). The risk
priority is S x L x D, from 1 to 27. In this example, 12 or more is
high, 6 to 11 is medium, and below 6 is low. Thresholds are set by your
quality risk management procedure, not by this template.
| ID | Function | Failure | Effect | S | L | D | Priority | Class | Assurance response |
|---|
| RSK-001 (Example) | FUN-002 | Administrator can switch off the audit trail | Changes to results not recorded | 3 | 2 | 3 | 18 | High | Configuration lock, scripted test, periodic review of configuration |
| RSK-002 (Example) | FUN-001 | Configured calculation gives wrong result | Wrong release decision | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | Medium | Scripted test of each calculation with boundary values |
| RSK-003 (Example) | FUN-004 | Label layout misaligned | Reprint needed | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Low | Unscripted testing, supplier evidence |
| RSK-004 (Example) | SYS-003 | Interface drops results | Missing data for release | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 | High | Scripted interface test, reconciliation report in operation |
| RSK-005 (Example) | FUN-002 | Signature not linked to the record | Signature validity challenged | 3 | 1 | 3 | 9 | Medium | Scripted test of signature manifestation and linking |
5. Supplier assessment
| ID | Supplier | Assessment method | Result | Evidence relied on | Agreement |
|---|
| SUP-001 (Example) | [Software supplier] | Questionnaire and remote audit | Acceptable with observations | Release test reports, development procedures, defect list | Quality agreement signed YYYY-MM-DD |
| SUP-002 (Example) | [Cloud hosting provider] | Review of independent assurance reports | Acceptable | ISO/IEC 27001 certificate, SOC 2 report | Service agreement with data location and exit terms |
Supplier observations become actions with owners in section 11.
6. Requirements
| ID | Requirement | Function | Risk | Source |
|---|
| URS-001 (Example) | The system shall calculate assay results with the configured formula and round per the laboratory procedure | FUN-001 | RSK-002 | Laboratory procedure [ID] |
| URS-002 (Example) | The system shall record who changed which GxP data, when, and the old and new values, without the possibility of being disabled by users | FUN-002 | RSK-001 | Annex 11 clause 9; 21 CFR 11.10(e) |
| URS-003 (Example) | Signed records shall show the signer's printed name, date and time, and meaning of the signature | FUN-002 | RSK-005 | 21 CFR 11.50 |
| URS-004 (Example) | Signatures shall be linked to their records so that they cannot be copied or removed | FUN-002 | RSK-005 | 21 CFR 11.70 |
| URS-005 (Example) | Every result sent by the chromatography system shall be received or reported as missing | SYS-003 | RSK-004 | Annex 11 clause 5 |
| URS-006 (Example) | Access shall be limited to authorised users with role-based permissions | All | RSK-001 | Annex 11 clause 12; 21 CFR 11.10(d) |
| URS-007 (Example) | The system shall print a certificate of analysis with the approved results | FUN-003 | [Risk ID] | Quality procedure [ID] |
7. Assurance approach and testing
7.1 Method by risk class
| Risk class | Assurance method | Evidence | Who reviews |
|---|
| High | Scripted testing with predefined expected results, including negative and boundary cases | Executed test record, objective evidence of results | QA |
| Medium | Scripted testing focused on the risk, or unscripted testing with documented objectives | Test record with summary of results and issues | System owner, QA sample |
| Low | Unscripted or exploratory testing, or reliance on supplier evidence | Brief record: what was tested, by whom, when, result | System owner |
7.2 Test plan
| ID | Requirement | Method | Environment | Acceptance criterion |
|---|
| TST-001 (Example) | URS-001 | Scripted, each formula with normal, boundary and invalid inputs | Validation environment | All results equal independently calculated values |
| TST-002 (Example) | URS-002 | Scripted, change data as each role, try to disable audit trail | Validation environment | All changes recorded; no role can disable the audit trail |
| TST-003 (Example) | URS-003, URS-004 | Scripted, sign, export, attempt to copy signature | Validation environment | Manifestation complete; signature cannot be moved |
| TST-004 (Example) | URS-005 | Scripted, send 500 results including malformed ones | Integration environment | 500 accounted for: received or reported |
| TST-005 (Example) | URS-006 | Unscripted, role matrix exploration | Validation environment | No access beyond the role matrix |
| TST-006 (Example) | URS-007 | Unscripted, review report layouts | Validation environment | Report content matches approved results |
7.3 Deviations during testing
Record every unexpected result as a test incident with an ID, impact
assessment, resolution and retest. A test incident that reveals a
requirement or risk error updates sections 4 and 6 before release.
8. Data integrity controls
| ID | Principle | Control | Verified by |
|---|
| DI-001 (Example) | Attributable | Unique user accounts, no shared logins | TST-005, user access review |
| DI-002 (Example) | Legible and enduring | Records stored in a format readable for the retention period | Archive test in section 12 |
| DI-003 (Example) | Contemporaneous | Server time stamps synchronised to a trusted source | Configuration record |
| DI-004 (Example) | Original | Raw data from the interface kept unchanged with the result | TST-004 |
| DI-005 (Example) | Accurate | Calculations verified, manual entries second-person checked | TST-001, procedure |
| DI-006 (Example) | Complete and consistent | Audit trail on all GxP data, reviewed before result approval | TST-002, review procedure |
| DI-007 (Example) | Available | Backup and restore tested, records retrievable for inspection | Restore test in section 12 |
9. Electronic records and signatures controls
| ID | Annex 11 clause | 21 CFR Part 11 section | Control in this system | Evidence |
|---|
| ERS-001 | 1 Risk management | 11.10 (system controls, in general) | Section 4 risk assessment | This plan |
| ERS-002 | 3 Suppliers and service providers | Not specific | SUP-001, SUP-002 | Supplier records |
| ERS-003 | 4 Validation | 11.10(a) | Sections 6, 7, 10, 11 | Validation report |
| ERS-004 | 5 Data, 6 Accuracy checks | 11.10(h) | URS-005, DI-005 | TST-001, TST-004 |
| ERS-005 | 7 Data storage, 17 Archiving | 11.10(b), 11.10(c) | Backup, archive and retrieval procedures | Restore test |
| ERS-006 | 8 Printouts | 11.10(b) | Report generation with record identifiers | TST-006 |
| ERS-007 | 9 Audit trails | 11.10(e) | URS-002 | TST-002 |
| ERS-008 | 10 Change and configuration management | 11.10(k) | Change control procedure | Change records |
| ERS-009 | 12 Security | 11.10(d), 11.10(g), 11.300 | URS-006, password and account rules | TST-005 |
| ERS-010 | 14 Electronic signature | 11.50, 11.70, 11.100, 11.200 | URS-003, URS-004 | TST-003 |
| ERS-011 | 15 Batch release | Not specific | Only qualified persons can certify; system enforces role | TST-005 |
| ERS-012 | 16 Business continuity | Not specific | Manual fallback procedure and recovery plan | Continuity test |
10. Traceability matrix
| Requirement | Risk | Test | Result | Open issue |
|---|
| URS-001 | RSK-002 | TST-001 | [Pass / Fail] | [Incident ID] |
| URS-002 | RSK-001 | TST-002 | [Pass / Fail] | [Incident ID] |
| URS-003 | RSK-005 | TST-003 | [Pass / Fail] | [Incident ID] |
| URS-004 | RSK-005 | TST-003 | [Pass / Fail] | [Incident ID] |
| URS-005 | RSK-004 | TST-004 | [Pass / Fail] | [Incident ID] |
| URS-006 | RSK-001 | TST-005 | [Pass / Fail] | [Incident ID] |
| URS-007 | [Risk ID] | TST-006 | [Pass / Fail] | [Incident ID] |
General method: traceability matrix (requirements/traceability-matrix).
11. Release and validation report
| Item | Content |
|---|
| Summary of activities | [Sections 3 to 10 completed; list of executed tests] |
| Results | [Example: 6 tests executed, 5 passed first time, 1 passed after fix] |
| Deviations and test incidents | [IDs, impact, resolution] |
| Open actions | [ID, owner, due date, justification] |
| Procedures in place | [Use, administration, backup, incident, change, periodic review] |
| Training | [Users trained before access granted] |
| Conclusion | [The system is fit for its intended use / is not released] |
| Release decision | [@process-owner], [@qa-reviewer], YYYY-MM-DD |
12. Operational phase
| ID | Process | Frequency | Owner | Record |
|---|
| OPS-001 (Example) | Change control with impact and regression assessment | Each change | System owner | Change record |
| OPS-002 (Example) | Supplier release assessment for hosted updates | Each release | System owner | Release assessment |
| OPS-003 (Example) | Periodic review of validated state, configuration, incidents and audit trail review effectiveness | Yearly for high risk | System owner, QA | Periodic review report |
| OPS-004 (Example) | User access review | Quarterly | Process owner | Access review record |
| OPS-005 (Example) | Backup restore test | Twice a year | IT service owner | Restore record |
| OPS-006 (Example) | Incident and deviation handling, with CAPA where needed | Each incident | System owner | Incident and CAPA records |
| OPS-007 (Example) | Decommissioning with data migration or archive | End of life | System owner | Decommissioning report |
Artificial intelligence and machine learning: if a future change adds
a model that influences GxP decisions, assess it against the draft EU
GMP Annex 22 and its final version when published, and treat model
updates as changes under OPS-001.
13. Roles and responsibilities
| Role | Responsibilities |
|---|
| Process owner | Intended use, requirements, risk acceptance, release decision |
| System owner | Technical design, configuration, supplier management, operational processes |
| Quality assurance | Review of plan, risk assessment and report; release approval |
| Subject matter experts | Requirements, test design and execution |
| IT service owner | Infrastructure, backup, access administration |
| Supplier | Development, release testing, hosting under the quality agreement |
14. Glossary and references
14.1 Glossary
| Term | Meaning |
|---|
| GxP | Good practice regulations, for example manufacturing, laboratory, clinical and distribution |
| CSV | Computerised system validation: documented evidence that a system is fit for intended use |
| CSA | Computer software assurance: risk-based approach to establishing confidence in software |
| ALCOA+ | Attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate, plus complete, consistent, enduring, available |
| Audit trail | Secure, computer-generated record of who did what to GxP data, and when |
| Scripted testing | Testing with predefined steps and expected results |
| Unscripted testing | Testing without step-by-step scripts, guided by objectives, such as exploratory testing |
| Qualified person | Person responsible in the EU for certifying batches before release |
14.2 References
Standard and licence note
Based on public regulatory texts (EU GMP Annex 11 and Chapter 4,
21 CFR Part 11) and the FDA guidance on computer software assurance;
structure aligned with ISPE GAMP 5 Second Edition, which is a paid
publication cited by name, edition and public structure only. Official
text: ISPE, purchase or licensed access:
https://ispe.org/publications/guidance-documents/gamp-5-guide-2nd-edition.
No text from GAMP 5 or the regulations is reproduced; clause and section
numbers are given for reference and all descriptions are original text
written for this collection. Check the current official texts, in
particular the status of the Annex 11 revision and the new Annex 22,
before use. This is a documentation format, not regulatory or legal
advice; follow your quality system and consult qualified
professionals. GAMP is a trademark of ISPE; this template is not
affiliated with or endorsed by ISPE, the European Commission or the
FDA. Template licence: MIT.