Medical Device · Design Control Automation

Compliance that enforces itself.

Omni Octa detects regulatory events, enforces obligations in real time, and builds your audit trail automatically — before the auditors find what your team missed.

Compliance Event Detected just now
Jira · Design Change
CATH-241 closed
"Update catheter tip geometry"
Obligation mapped
ISO 13485 §7.3.7 — Design change review
!
Gaps flagged (2)
Risk file not updated · V&V scope not reassessed
Action sent to owner
J. Hansen · Due Friday 17:00
Design freeze blocked — 2 items open
The Problem

Compliance is manual, fragmented, and reactive.

The average mid-size medtech company spends millions keeping up with regulatory obligations — manually, after the fact.

$2–4M
avg. annual compliance cost per mid-size medtech
60–80%
of QA team time spent on manual documentation
6 mo.
avg. CAPA cycle time from finding to closure
Engineering decisions made in Jira — they never reach the QMS
Design changes don't trigger DHF or risk file updates
Audit prep means assembling records weeks after the fact
Regulatory obligations missed until an auditor finds them
The Gap

Systems of record. Not systems of execution.

Every tool in the stack does something — but none detect compliance events, enforce obligations, or maintain compliance state.

eQMS
Greenlight Guru, Veeva
Does
Stores records & documents
Gap
Passive repository. Nothing is detected.
Jira / Confluence
Engineering Ops
Does
Tracks tasks & engineering decisions
Gap
No compliance awareness at all.
LLM Copilots
Generic AI Tools
Does
Drafts text, summarises documents
Gap
No enforcement, no regulatory grounding.
Consultants / CROs
$300–500/hr
Does
Expert interpretation on demand
Gap
Not scalable. Human error.
What none of them do
Detect compliance events Reason across frameworks Enforce before execution Validate with stakeholders Maintain compliance state
Our Solution

Compliance Execution Intelligence.

The layer no existing system provides — detect, reason, interact, enforce, verify. Starting with medical device design controls.

01
Detect
Monitor Jira, Git, email, and meetings for compliance-relevant events as they happen.
02
Reason
Apply the right rule — 21 CFR 820, ISO 13485, IEC 62304, EU MDR — to each event.
03
Interact
Request evidence, flag gaps, follow up with owners — structured, tracked, recorded.
04
Enforce
Block design freeze, release, or submission until all compliance conditions are met.
05
Verify
Log every decision with reasoning, regulatory reference, and a tamper-evident audit record.
Interactive Demo

See it in action.

Explore the platform — click through design control event detection, regulatory reasoning, DHF tracking, and the cryptographic audit trail.

Dashboard
3 open items FDA 21 CFR Part 820
Compliance score
84%
↓ 6pts since last sprint
Open items
3
1 blocking release
Events detected
12
Last 7 days
DHF completeness
71%
Risk file outdated
Recent compliance events
Design change detected — catheter tip geometry
Jira PRJ-418 closed · 2h ago · ISO 13485 §7.3.7 triggered
Blocking
1
Jira ticket PRJ-418 closed: "Update catheter tip angle from 15° to 22°"source: jira-webhook · 14:32:01
2
Obligation mapped: ISO 13485 §7.3.7 — design change review requiredconfidence: 97% · rule-engine v2.4
3
2 DHF gaps found: risk file not updated · V&V scope not reassesseddhf-scan completed · 14:32:04
4
Action request sent to J. Mehta (QA) — deadline Friday 17:00email dispatched · 14:32:05
5
Design freeze blocked — 2 open items must close firstenforcement-engine · active
6
Audit log pending closureawaiting human sign-off
Supplier change — titanium rod manufacturer
ERP change order #CO-291 · 1d ago · 21 CFR Part 820.50 triggered
Pending
1
ERP change order CO-291: titanium rod supplier changed to Ortho-Metals GmbHsource: erp-api · yesterday 09:14
2
Obligation: 21 CFR 820.50 — supplier qualification required before useconfidence: 91%
3
Supplier audit record not found in QMS — gap flaggedqms-scan · no record found
4
Awaiting supplier qualification submission from procurementreminder sent · due in 3 days
Software version bump — firmware v1.4.2
Git tag v1.4.2 · 3d ago · IEC 62304 §6.2 evaluated
Cleared
1
Git tag v1.4.2 pushed — classified as minor version changesource: github-webhook · 3d ago
2
IEC 62304 §6.2 — change classified Safety Class B, maintenance releaseconfidence: 89% · human reviewed
3
No new V&V scope required — existing test coverage confirmed adequate
4
Decision logged with cryptographic hash — audit record created
All compliance events — Lumbar Fusion System v2.1
Blocking (1) Pending (2) Cleared (9)
Detected this sprint
Catheter tip geometry changeJ. Mehta
Supplier change CO-291Procurement
Firmware v1.4.2 bumpCleared
SOP-QA-004 revisionCleared
Sterilisation cycle parameter updateCleared
Regulatory obligations triggered
ISO 13485 §7.3.7
Design change review — open
21 CFR Part 820.50
Supplier qualification — pending
IEC 62304 §6.2
Software change classification — cleared
Design History File — Lumbar Fusion System v2.1
Design inputs
Complete
Risk file (ISO 14971)
Outdated — update required
Design outputs
Complete
V&V protocols
Scope not reassessed
Traceability matrix
3 unlinked requirements
Design review records
Complete
Open actions
Update risk file: reassess catheter tip geometry change (ISO 14971 §6)J. Mehta · due Fri
Reassess V&V scope for angle change — confirm existing tests cover 22° variantR. Okonkwo · due Fri
Link 3 orphaned requirements to design outputs in traceability matrixS. Patel · due next week
Audit trail — tamper-evident decision log
Decision log
14:32
Design change detected — PRJ-418
jira-webhook · hash: a3f9...
14:32
ISO 13485 §7.3.7 applied — change review required
rule-engine v2.4 · conf: 97%
14:32
DHF gap flagged — risk file + V&V scope
dhf-scanner · 2 gaps
14:32
Design freeze blocked — enforcement active
enforcement-engine · state: blocked
09:14
Supplier change detected — CO-291
erp-api · hash: b7c2...
3d ago
Firmware v1.4.2 — cleared by human reviewer
human-review · signed: R. Okonkwo
Confidence scoring — catheter tip event
ISO 13485 §7.3.7 match
97%
DHF gap detection
95%
V&V scope impact
72%
V&V impact below threshold (80%) — flagged for human review before enforcement
Cryptographic record
event_id: EVT-2026-0418
timestamp: 2026-05-08T14:32:01Z
rule: ISO_13485_7.3.7
confidence: 0.97
hash: a3f9b2c14d8e6f2a91b3c5d7e4f8a2b6
prev: 7c3a1b9f2d4e8a6c...
Stakeholder interactions — system-generated, human-reviewed
Outbound — pending response
To: j.mehta@company.comSent 14:32 today
Action required: Risk file update — catheter tip geometry change (PRJ-418)
Hi Jasprit,

A design change was detected in PRJ-418 (catheter tip angle: 15° → 22°). Under ISO 13485 §7.3.7, the risk file requires review before design freeze can proceed.

Required by: Friday 17:00
Blocking: Design freeze for v2.1

Please update risk file section 6.2 and confirm V&V scope coverage.

— Omni Octa
Interaction state
Email dispatched to J. Mehta14:32
Reminder queued for Thu 09:00 if no responseAuto
Awaiting response — 2h outstandingOpen
Supplier qual request — CO-291Procurement
Escalation rule: If no response by Thursday 09:00, CC to QA Manager and flag to human reviewer. Design freeze remains blocked.
Event resolved
Compliance Maturity Benchmark

Where does your programme stand?

We've mapped four stages of compliance maturity across regulated medtech companies. Most teams building toward FDA 510(k) or EU MDR land at Integrated — and stay there longer than they expect.

ReactiveAd hoc, audit-driven
DocumentedQMS in place, still manual
IntegratedTools connected, high overhead
OrchestratedAutomated execution
Reactive
Compliance happens after the fact.

At this stage, compliance is triggered by external pressure — an upcoming audit, a customer request, or a regulatory submission. Design decisions are made in engineering tools and never reach the QMS. Documentation is assembled retrospectively, and gaps are discovered by auditors, not by the team.

8%
of design change events captured in real time
9+ mo.
avg. CAPA close time from finding to closure
Strengths
Moves fast; low process overhead; engineering-first culture
Weaknesses
No traceability; high FDA 483 risk; audit prep takes 6–8 weeks; DHF assembled from scratch each cycle
Motivations
Approaching first submission; investor or notified body pressure; a near-miss during due diligence
DHF completeness (median)
Design inputs52%
Risk file (ISO 14971)29%
V&V protocols41%
Traceability matrix22%
Change control records18%
Regulatory obligations most often missed
Design change review
ISO 13485 §7.3.7 · missed by 84%
Risk re-evaluation
ISO 14971 §10 · missed by 79%
Supplier qualification
21 CFR 820.50 · missed by 71%
SaMD re-evaluation
IEC 62304 §6.2 · missed by 88%
Biggest barrier to advancing
81%
"We have no traceability between engineering decisions and our compliance documentation."
Documented
Processes exist. Compliance still lags.

The QMS is in place — SOPs are written, design controls are documented, and the team has been trained. But engineering tools and the QMS remain siloed. Compliance is the QA team's job, not the engineer's. Design changes get captured, but only after someone remembers to update the documentation.

19%
of design change events captured in real time
6.4 mo.
avg. CAPA close time from finding to closure
Strengths
Structured QMS; trained team; documented procedures; passing basic audits
Weaknesses
QMS not connected to engineering tools; high QA overhead maintaining manual records; reactive gap-filling before audits
Motivations
Scaling headcount; preparing for CE marking or 510(k); growing number of change events outpacing QA capacity
DHF completeness (median)
Design inputs81%
Risk file (ISO 14971)58%
V&V protocols64%
Traceability matrix49%
Change control records62%
QA overhead breakdown
Manual documentation updates68%
Chasing engineers for sign-off54%
Pre-audit document assembly47%
Change control coordination39%
Biggest barrier to advancing
74%
"Engineering decisions are made in Jira. They almost never reach the QMS in real time."
Integrated
Connected tools, manual bridges.

At this stage, engineering and compliance are aware of each other. Jira tickets reference QMS items, change orders trigger email threads, and the QA team actively monitors design activity. But the bridge between systems is human — and it breaks under pressure. Design events are captured, but with delays, inconsistencies, and QA overhead that scales with headcount rather than automation.

34%
of design change events captured in real time
4.8 mo.
avg. CAPA close time from finding to closure
Strengths
Cross-functional awareness; structured change control; QMS connected to product roadmap; passing notified body audits
Weaknesses
Manual coordination creates delays; DHF drifts behind fast-moving sprints; QA becomes a bottleneck; design freeze decisions still manual
Motivations
510(k) or CE mark submitted or imminent; post-market surveillance demands growing; scaling to multi-product requires repeatable compliance infrastructure
DHF completeness (median)
Design inputs89%
Risk file (ISO 14971)63%
V&V protocols74%
Traceability matrix58%
Change control records81%
Drivers for compliance investment
Upcoming regulatory submission88%
QA team capacity constraints74%
Audit finding or near-miss61%
Product line expansion48%
Biggest barrier to advancing
71%
"Keeping the DHF current as the product evolves fast is the single hardest thing we do."
Orchestrated
Compliance runs automatically.

At this stage, every engineering action is a compliance event — and every compliance event is handled automatically. Design changes trigger obligation mapping, DHF updates, stakeholder requests, and enforcement gates without human initiation. The QA team focuses on judgment, oversight, and strategy rather than coordination and document chasing.

96%
of design change events captured in real time
1.3 mo.
avg. CAPA close time from finding to closure
Strengths
Audit-ready at any time; cryptographic record of every decision; DHF always current; QA focused on judgment not admin
Considerations
Requires initial integration with engineering tools; engineering team onboarding to automated workflows; human oversight essential for edge cases
What gets unlocked
Scale to multiple product lines without scaling QA headcount; eliminate FDA 483 observations on design control; continuous post-market surveillance
DHF completeness (median)
Design inputs99%
Risk file (ISO 14971)97%
V&V protocols96%
Traceability matrix98%
Change control records100%
Outcomes vs. Integrated tier
Reduction in QA admin overhead−73%
Faster CAPA closure−72%
Fewer FDA 483 design control observations−91%
Reduction in audit prep time−88%
Biggest barrier to advancing
44%
"Onboarding the engineering team to compliance-aware workflows took longer than setting up the platform itself."
Get in Touch

Ready to stop fighting your compliance stack?

We're working with a focused group of medtech teams building toward FDA clearance or EU MDR. If that's you, we'd like to talk.

info@omniocta.com