The EU GMP Chapter 4 revision is one of the most significant regulatory developments in years for anyone managing pharmaceutical documentation. On 7 July 2025 the European Commission opened the public consultation on the draft of the new Chapter 4 "Documentation" of EudraLex Volume 4, together with the revision of Annex 11 and the new Annex 22 on artificial intelligence. The consultation closed on 7 October 2025 and adoption of the final text is expected during 2026. For QA, manufacturing and the laboratory this means one thing: the chapter that has governed SOPs, batch records and GMP records for over a decade is changing shape, and it pays to be prepared.
Why the EU GMP Chapter 4 revision is coming
The Chapter 4 currently in force dates back to 2011. In fifteen years the way we document in GMP has changed radically: electronic document management systems, electronic batch records, digital signatures, cloud services and, increasingly, hybrid environments where paper and electronic records coexist on the same process. The 2011 text, written in a still predominantly paper-based era, offered no explicit answers on metadata, audit trails or data governance. The result is familiar to anyone working in QA: for years inspection expectations on data integrity grew faster than the regulatory text, forcing companies to reconstruct them from FDA, MHRA and PIC/S guidance.
The draft revision — written by EMA's GMDP Inspectors Working Group in cooperation with PIC/S, which published its equivalent text in parallel — was created precisely to close this gap. The stated objective is to strengthen the role of documentation in GMP compliance and support the use of new technologies, hybrid solutions and new services in documentation management, while maintaining international alignment between EU GMP and the PIC/S guide.
The new structure of the chapter
Compared with the 2011 text, the draft has been restructured and significantly expanded. The planned sections include:
- Principle and data governance: documentation formally enters the scope of the Pharmaceutical Quality System, with a dedicated data governance system;
- Risk management: risk management principles apply across the entire documentation lifecycle;
- General requirements and master documents: generation, control and distribution of master documents;
- Good documentation practice: sound recording practices, on paper and on electronic systems;
- Signatures in GMP documents: requirements and value of signatures, including electronic ones;
- Retention and data integrity: retention, backup, restore and data integrity;
- Hybrid systems: a dedicated section on mixed paper-electronic environments;
- Glossary: definitions of key terms such as audit trail, metadata and true copy.
Topics like this one — regulatory revisions, deadlines and operational impacts — are the daily bread of The Pragmatic GMP, our free weekly newsletter: one email a week, practical and to the point, so GMP news never catches you off guard. Subscribe and be ready for the new Chapter 4.
What really changes: the main novelties
The deepest difference from 2011 is not a single requirement but a paradigm shift: from the "document" to the "data". The draft defines data governance as the sum of arrangements ensuring that data, irrespective of format, are attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate, complete, consistent, enduring and available throughout the entire lifecycle. In other words, data integrity principles — until now scattered across Annex 11, PIC/S guidance and inspection expectations — move into the body of the documentation chapter.
| Aspect | Chapter 4 (2011) | Draft revision (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Data governance | Not addressed | Dedicated section, integrated into the PQS |
| Risk-based approach | Absent from the text | QRM applied across the documentation lifecycle |
| Good documentation practice | Basic recording rules | Principles extended to paper data, electronic data and metadata |
| Hybrid systems | Not mentioned | Dedicated section: definition of the master record and risk mitigation |
| Electronic signatures | Not regulated | Clarified requirements for validity and control |
| Retention | Paper-focused | Backup, restore and archiving of electronic records |
| Glossary | Absent | Definitions of audit trail, metadata, true copy |
Pay attention to hybrid systems too: the draft formally recognises them but treats them as configurations to be governed through clear procedures, in which the company must define which component — paper or electronic — constitutes the official record and how the risks of misalignment between the two are mitigated. This is one of the areas where inspectorates have found the most issues in recent years — think of the raw electronic data of an HPLC "summarised" in a signed paper report — and it is reasonable to expect it to become a priority inspection focus once the revision enters into force.
The link with Annex 11 and the new Annex 22
The Chapter 4 revision does not travel alone. In the same consultation package the Commission presented the revision of Annex 11 on computerised systems and the new Annex 22 on artificial intelligence: three texts designed to work together. Chapter 4 sets the principles of documentation governance and integrity, Annex 11 governs the computerised systems that manage it, and Annex 22 covers the AI and machine learning models used in manufacturing. Anyone running a gap assessment should therefore read the three documents as a single reference framework, avoiding point fixes that solve one requirement only to expose another.
How to prepare: a 5-step gap assessment
- Map your documentation inventory: which records are paper, which electronic, which hybrid, and who owns each one;
- Check your data governance: is there a policy covering metadata, audit trails and the data lifecycle? If it is fragmented across different procedures, consolidate it;
- Assess hybrid systems: for every mixed process, define the master record and document the risk assessment;
- Review signatures and retention: are electronic signatures qualified and controlled? Are backup and restore of electronic records tested and documented?
- Plan training: the shift from document to data requires shop-floor operators to understand what metadata and audit trails are.
GuideGxP recommendation
Do not wait for the final text to start moving: the drafts under consultation clearly anticipate inspection expectations, and many concepts — ALCOA+, audit trail review, access control — are already the subject of audit findings today. A gap assessment run now against the draft leaves you time to close structural gaps (data governance, hybrid systems, electronic retention) before they become non-conformities. Document the gap assessment itself: in an inspection, showing that you evaluated the upcoming revision is already a sign of a mature PQS.
If your gap concerns computerised systems and data integrity, the Operational Guide to Computer System Validation (CSV) in GxP by GuideGxP covers validation, the current and future Annex 11 and data integrity controls, with 12 ready-to-use Excel and Word tools.
