First edition · v1.0 · September 2026 · regulatory cut-off 12 September 2026
This guide does not tell you what is usually done. It tells you which act requires what, with which verb — and where nothing is required at all.
Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/1572 says "All process deviations and product defects shall be documented and thoroughly investigated": no adjective, no threshold. EudraLex Chapter 1 §1.8(vii), which is supposed to interpret that act, narrows it to "any significant deviations", with should and with no definition of the threshold in any text that uses it. This guide sets out both, with clause, date and verb, states the hierarchy that links them, and leaves the decision to the site. 27 chapters in six parts, 252 pages in the English edition and 265 in the Italian, 18 editable tools and 159 tables, at €149.
252 pages (ENG) · 265 (ITA) · A4 PDF27 chapters in six parts + 6 appendices18 editable tools per language1,201 regulatory labels per edition159 tables60 sources in the registerRegulatory cut-off 12 September 2026
Two separate editions, not two languages in one file. The guide and the toolkit exist in two editions only, Italian and English, with identical structure, numbering, tables and references: at checkout you choose the variant ITA - Italiano or ENG - English, at the same price. Your purchase gives you the one edition you choose.
The guide
27 chapters in six parts that follow a quality event from the door it comes in through to the day it is closed: the chain — investigation, cause, CAPA, effectiveness, review — and its seven entry points; the self-inspection, with Chapter 9 read clause by clause; the deviation, from Article 10(1) to the QP door of Annex 16 §3; the machinery the two entry points share; the boundaries with the neighbouring disciplines; and how all of it is demonstrated in an inspection. Every chapter states what the text says → with which verb → for which jurisdiction and which product scope → through which act → what the site has to decide → where the decision is recorded, and closes on the table of decisions it produces.
The toolkit
18 editable tools per language: 9 Excel workbooks carrying 2,364 live formulas across 55 worksheets, with data validation and instruction sheets, and 9 Word documents carrying 211 tables, model text, revision history and an approval line. Every checklist row carries act, clause, verb and jurisdiction — a row without those four fields does not go in — and every field that depends on product, process, site or jurisdiction is <to be defined>. Tools 08, 09 and 11 are new to the GuideGxP catalogue.
Lifetime updates
The picture moves, and the next checkpoints already have an address: a revision of EudraLex Chapter 1 was put out for consultation from 3 September to 3 December 2025, and at the cut-off there is neither a published text nor a date for coming into operation; Regulation (EU) 2025/2091, the veterinary one, was amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/857 before it even became applicable. When the texts change you receive the revised guide and toolkit at no extra cost.
€149, and what the price contains
First edition, version 1.0, September 2026: 252 pages in the English edition, 265 in the Italian, 27 chapters in six parts, 6 appendices, 159 tables and 18 editable tools per language — 9 Excel and 9 Word. Three of the tools are new to the GuideGxP catalogue: before this guide the catalogue held no deviation management SOP (★08), no editable deviation opening and handling form (★09) and no batch impact assessment and extension tool (★11).
The price is €149.00, with a regulatory verification cut-off of 12 September 2026 and the status of the documents ascertained on 13 September 2026, which is also the access date for all sixty entries in the source register. One edition is sold per variant — ITA - Italiano or ENG - English — at the same price.
The 18 tools, one by one
Nine Excel workbooks and nine Word documents per edition: 2,364 live formulas across 55 worksheets and 211 tables in the Word documents. No operational value is pre-loaded, in any of the eighteen tools, and none of them produces a GMP compliance score. The tools marked ★ — 08, 09 and 11 — are new to the GuideGxP catalogue.
WORD01 · Self-inspection SOP (ch. 5)
The procedure that makes intervals, competence and the reporting regime enforceable. Input: decisions 1-5 and 8-10 of Appendix C. Filled in by the quality unit, approved by site management. Placeholders: intervals, finding scale, deadlines.
EXCEL02 · Risk-based programme and audit universe (ch. 6)
Areas, quality signals and site history become a programme with coverage and a rationale by area — the pre-arranged programme Chapter 9 §9.1 asks for and whose interval it does not set. Filled in by the programme owner, approved by the quality unit. Placeholders: risk criteria and weightings, intervals.
WORD03 · Audit plan and sampling (ch. 8)
The plan with the sample declared before execution, built on the area, the objectives and the reference clauses. Filled in by the designated auditor, approved by the programme owner. Placeholders: sample size, widening criteria, duration.
EXCEL04 · Master self-inspection checklist (ch. 8)
Traced coverage and open questions. Every row carries act, clause, verb and jurisdiction: without those four fields the row does not go in. Filled in by the auditor, approved by the programme owner. Placeholders: acceptance thresholds.
EXCEL05 · Evidence and document request log (ch. 8)
The trace of what was seen, when and by whom: the document that shows how the self-inspection was conducted, not merely that it had been scheduled. Filled in by the auditor; no approval required. Placeholders: expected response times.
WORD06 · Self-inspection report and findings (ch. 9)
The report carrying all the observations and the proposed actions, as §9.3 asks — a clause that speaks of statements on the actions and does not ask for an effectiveness check. Filled in by the auditor, approved by the programme owner. Placeholders: scale, deadlines.
EXCEL07 · Auditor competence and independence (ch. 7)
Suitability for each individual self-inspection and declared conflicts, on profiles, training and areas of attachment. It keeps the human-use rule apart from the veterinary one, which is in shall from 16 July 2026. Filled in by the quality unit, approved by site management. Placeholders: minimum requirements, rule adopted.
WORD★08 · Deviation management SOP (ch. 10)
New to the GuideGxP catalogue. The procedure that says what the site calls a deviation, who approves it, how it is classified and how it is sorted against a change. Input: decisions 11-18. Filled in by the quality unit, approved by site management. Placeholders: working definitions, significant threshold, scale, deadlines.
WORD★09 · Deviation opening and handling form (ch. 12)
New to the GuideGxP catalogue. Recording, containment, impact assessment and written approval, with the date and time of detection kept apart from the date of opening. Filled in by whoever detects it and then by the area manager, approved by the competent person designated in the SOP. Placeholders: opening deadlines, classification fields.
EXCEL10 · Deviation log (ch. 11)
The complete population for the period, searchable by batch, product, system, status and significance qualification: it is the document with which Article 10(1) is demonstrated, since that article requires all process deviations to be documented. It tracks unresolved records, not a state of compliance. Placeholders: deadlines, backlog alert thresholds.
EXCEL★11 · Batch impact assessment and extension (ch. 13)
New to the GuideGxP catalogue. The scope included and the scope excluded with its written justification — the only European source that asks for an exclusion to be justified is Annex 1 (2022) §3.2, for sterile medicinal products. Filled in by the quality unit, approved by the QP or equivalent function. Placeholders: inclusion and exclusion criteria.
WORD12 · Investigation report (ch. 15)
Facts, timeline and evidence in a proportionate investigation, with conclusions and follow-up, and the rationale for the depth written against the three factors of ICH Q9(R1) §5.1 — uncertainty, importance, complexity. Filled in by the investigation owner, approved by the quality unit. Placeholders: depth levels and attribution criteria.
EXCEL13 · Root cause worksheet (ch. 16)
The cause, or the most likely root cause, with the reasoning traced and the check that process, procedural and system-based causes have been ruled out — the step §1.4(xiv) asks to have justified. It imposes no method. Placeholders: methods allowed.
WORD14 · CAPA plan (ch. 18)
Actions, owners, dates and the effectiveness criterion defined before execution, starting from the cause determined and the residual risk. Filled in by the action owner, approved by the quality unit. Placeholders: deadlines, criterion, exposure.
EXCEL15 · CAPA log and effectiveness check (ch. 19)
The outcome of the check, with insufficient exposure recorded as such and not as effectiveness achieved: an absence of recurrence proves nothing until the opportunity to fail has existed. Filled in and approved by the quality unit. Placeholders: window, sample size, detection capability.
WORD16 · Follow-up and closure report (ch. 19)
A reasoned closure, or a reopening, on the outcome of the effectiveness check. Closure is a reasoned decision, not a calculation of dates. Filled in by the action owner, approved by the quality unit. Placeholders: reopening criteria.
EXCEL17 · Metrics, trends and review (ch. 20)
Indicators with the denominator stated and input to the management review, built on the deviation, CAPA and self-inspection logs. Filled in by the quality unit, approved by senior management. Placeholders: thresholds, frequency.
WORD18 · Inspection simulation kit (ch. 27)
Questions, expected evidence and the gaps found before an inspector finds them, built on the complete chain of one of the site's own events. Every question points back to the clause that justifies it, and the questions are original support material, not a reproduction of regulatory checklists. Placeholders: scope and duration.
None of the 18 tools carries a pre-loaded operational value
Intervals, scales, thresholds, closure timings, sample sizes and effectiveness criteria are <to be defined> in all eighteen tools. Next to every placeholder the sheet says who decides, on what basis and where the decision is recorded, with a pointer to the matching decision among the 30 of Appendix C.
The reason is not editorial caution. A pre-loaded number becomes the site's default without anyone having decided, assessed or justified it — and yet it is written in the procedure, and is therefore enforceable in inspection: in the European Union under Article 10(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/1572 together with the documentation principle of Chapter 4, in the United States under 21 CFR 211.100(b), "Written production and process control procedures shall be followed". The deadline does not exist until it is written down; once written, it binds.
None of the eighteen tools produces a GMP compliance score, and none reproduces or adapts any third-party table, figure, matrix or scale. The examples sit in sections kept separate from the working registers, are declared fictitious at the head of those sections, and are not pre-filled into the working fields.
You use it tomorrow morning
| The situation | What you use |
|---|
| Our procedures state that self-inspection has to be annual | Chapters 4 and 6 + Tools 01 and 02: no binding GMP source sets a self-inspection frequency, and seventeen sources were searched on the clause that deals with frequency. The annual figure belongs to the Product Quality Review, which is a different obligation: Chapter 1 §1.10, 21 CFR 211.180(e), Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2025/2091. The real requirement everywhere is the programme: the interval has to be decided and written down first |
| A consultant has told us an auditor cannot audit their own area | Chapters 4 and 7 + Tool 07: organisational independence of the auditor is imposed by exactly one source in the world, Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2025/2091 — "by individuals not involved in the audited activities", shall, veterinary medicinal products only, applicable from 16 July 2026. Chapter 9 §9.2 qualifies the manner, not the position, and ties the self-inspection to people from inside the company |
| We only investigate significant deviations | Chapters 3 and 11 + Tools ★08 and 10: the sentence describes a practice that complies with §1.8(vii) and does not comply with Article 10(1), if the result is that non-significant deviations are not documented. What the texts allow you to grade is the depth of the investigation — ICH Q9(R1) §5.1, ICH Q10 §3.2.2, EudraLex §8.10 — not entry into the log |
| Our SOP requires closure within thirty days | Chapter 4 + Tools ★08 and 15: twenty-four documents searched, no closure deadline. The only deadlines in days that exist in the corpus measure a notification — the 3 working days of the Field Alert Report, 21 CFR 314.81(b)(1) — or belong to the authority. The criterion the texts write down is timely, commensurate with risk; the target is a requirement the site imposes on itself |
| Our SOP mandates the 5 Whys | Chapters 4 and 16 + Tool 13: in the European texts the noun governed by appropriate is always level, never method; the 5 Whys appear in none of the regulatory sources examined. A method written into a procedure becomes a self-imposed requirement, and creates a potential non-conformity every time it is not applied |
| We are being asked to prove our CAPAs are effective | Chapter 19 + Tools 14, 15 and 16: in pharmaceuticals the verb is should in every occurrence verified, with one binding exception — the European veterinary regime, Articles 5(5)(i) and 44(8), from 16 July 2026. No source imposes a criterion, a timing, a method, a sample size or a documentary form: the criterion is written before execution, and insufficient exposure is recorded as exactly that |
| The QP has to certify a batch with an open deviation | Chapter 14 + Tools ★09 and ★11: Annex 16 section 3 applies only "Provided registered specifications … are met", asks the QP to conclude that the impact is "negligible", and requires the root cause to have been corrected, not merely identified. From 16 July 2026 Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2025/2091 says "only if" and "does not have a negative effect": two different thresholds for the same institution |
| We run a mixed site, human and veterinary | Chapters 3, 4, 7 and 26 + Appendix B: from 16 July 2026 root cause, effectiveness checking, auditor independence and management review all move to shall for veterinary medicinal products alone. The same practice has two opposite legal outcomes depending on the species the product is for, and the status matrix by jurisdiction says cell by cell which of the two you are in |
| Is this report a change or a deviation? | Chapter 22 + Tool ★08: the only official sorting rule is ICH Q12, Appendix 2, point 10 — change control does not absorb the deviation it generates, it hands it to the chain. The time-based criterion, change ex ante and deviation ex post, is stated as a criterion by no text: whoever writes it into an SOP is writing a rule of their own, and has to say so |
| Our self-inspection reports: can the inspector read them? | Chapter 25: in the European Union Conduct of inspections §4.8, in force since 1 January 2024, says the reports "should not normally be read by the inspector", with no listed exceptions; in the United States CPG Sec. 130.300 is a discretionary policy with four textual exceptions, and its closing clause leaves accessible everything that is required by regulation |
| We are rewriting our Product Quality Review SOP | Chapters 20 and 23 + Tool 17: a revision of Chapter 1 was out for consultation from 3 September to 3 December 2025; at the cut-off the consultation is closed, there is no published text and no date for coming into operation, and the final content is declared not verified. The chapter says what can be done now at no risk and what is better left alone |
| We have an inspection in two weeks | Chapters 24, 25, 26 and 27 + Tools 04, 17 and 18: the questions to prepare are the ones about criteria, not about events — six out of thirty-seven have as their correct answer "no source requires it, this is our choice". With the published figures and their denominators: in FY2025 the FDA issued 236 citations under 21 CFR 211.192 out of 2,837 citations in the drug area, 8.32 % |
Four facts, all verified on primary sources, and not one of the four is overstated
No binding GMP source sets a self-inspection frequency. Seventeen sources searched on the clause that deals with frequency — EudraLex Chapters 9 and 1, Part II, Part IV, PIC/S PE 009-17 Parts I and II, Directive 2003/94/EC, Directive (EU) 2017/1572, Regulation (EU) 2025/2091, ICH Q7, ICH Q10, 21 CFR Part 211, the FDA Quality Systems Approach, the Japanese GMP and GQP ordinances, Canada GUI-0001, WHO TRS 986 Annex 2 — and not one sets a number. The only numeric interval in the corpus is the WHO preference at §8.4, hedged three times in a single sentence (may depend, should preferably, at least) and with the number handed back to the company's own procedure. The annual figure the industry attaches to self-inspection belongs to the Product Quality Review, which is a different obligation: Chapter 1 §1.10, 21 CFR 211.180(e), Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2025/2091. In Chapter 9 the words "annual", "annually" and "year" do not appear.
Organisational independence of the auditor is imposed by exactly one source in the world. It is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2025/2091: "Self-inspections shall be conducted at pre-defined intervals by individuals not involved in the audited activities" — shall, an objective criterion, veterinary medicinal products only, applicable from 16 July 2026. Chapter 9 §9.2 says something else: "conducted in an independent and detailed way by designated competent person(s) from the company", which qualifies the manner and ties the self-inspection to people from inside. A human-use manufacturer that self-inspects a department with an auditor from that department breaches no binding rule; the same manufacturer, on the veterinary line, would breach Article 7(2).
The guideline is more permissive than the act it sets out to interpret. Directive (EU) 2017/1572, Article 10(1), verb shall: "All process deviations and product defects shall be documented and thoroughly investigated" — no adjective, no threshold, no reference to criteria of materiality. EudraLex Volume 4, Part I, Chapter 1, §1.8(vii): "Any significant deviations are fully recorded, investigated with the objective of determining the root cause…", with should and with no definition of the threshold in any text that uses it. The guide reproduces both texts in full, with clause, date and verb, states the hierarchy — Article 3(2) of the directive says "shall take into account", it does not incorporate EudraLex by reference — and says the choice is the site's. The same Chapter 1 then applies two thresholds to two departments without declaring it: "Any significant deviations" at §1.8(vii), "Any deviations are fully recorded and investigated" at §1.9(iv), Quality Control.
"CAPA" appears zero times in 21 CFR Part 211. Zero occurrences too for "corrective action", "preventive action" and "root cause": the only American foothold is the "shall include the conclusions and followup" of §211.192. And the only effectiveness verification ever written with shall in the whole corpus — 21 CFR §820.100, at (a)(4), "Verifying or validating the corrective and preventive action to ensure that such action is effective" — concerned medical devices and stopped being readable in the CFR on 2 February 2026, the effective date of the QMSR. In pharmaceuticals the verb stays should in every occurrence verified, with one binding exception: the European veterinary regime, Articles 5(5)(i) and 44(8) of Regulation (EU) 2025/2091, from 16 July 2026.
The apparatus that holds the four statements up. Twelve labels in two orthogonal families — five on the status of the document, seven on the nature of the assertion — used 1,201 times per edition: the same document can be [DETAILED GUIDELINE] while what is said from it is [PROVEN ABSENCE]. Three control rules run through the whole book: [TEXT] without a verbatim quotation is an error, [PROVEN ABSENCE] without the document and the term searched is an error, [PUBLISHED FIGURE] without a denominator is an error. The rest of the apparatus: a register of 60 sources with exact title, code, version, date, status and access date; a status matrix by jurisdiction; 30 tracked decisions with who decides, on what basis, where it is recorded and with which tool; and a register of 18 open contradiction cases, where two official sources both in force say different things and the book reports both without choosing for the reader.
Inside the guide
Part I — The chain, and where the obligation really sits (ch. 1-4). How the book is read, the seven reading paths and the twelve-label system; the map of the chain — seven entry points, five links, the internal outputs and the doors to the outside — with the master table giving act, clause, verb and jurisdiction for each entry point; the hierarchy of sources, which has four steps of which only one is law; and the proof, document by document and term by term, of eight things no source requires.
Part II — The self-inspection (ch. 5-9). Chapter 9 clause by clause: 178 words, entirely in should, with no date of coming into operation on the official index, and with the last item of its own list being "and self inspection". How the programme is built, and why "annual" does not come from there; independence and competence, with the only source in the world that imposes them; conducting, sampling, following a record through the process; and the finding, with the five elements that hold it up and the reason why critical/major/other is the scale inspectors use for their own deficiencies, not the one a company uses for its own deviations.
Part III — The deviation (ch. 10-14). What a deviation is, and why the European Union requires it by law to be investigated without ever having defined it for finished medicinal products; the real obligation, "all … shall" against "significant"; opening, containing and assessing the impact on the batch; extending to other batches and other products, with the express obligation of §211.192 and the three formulations of different force that correspond to it elsewhere; and Annex 16 §3, the QP door and the two thresholds of the unexpected deviation.
Part IV — The shared machinery (ch. 15-20). The links the two entry points have in common: the investigation and its proportionate depth, on the three factors of ICH Q9(R1) §5.1 and with the express prohibition on justifying it by resource constraints; the cause, where no method is imposed and the only European procedural rule concerns human error; designing the CAPA, and the difference between corrective and preventive; effectiveness, and its single shall that has gone from the CFR; review — PQR and management review — which has the weakest legal anchoring on the whole map.
Part V — The boundaries (ch. 21-23). The other entry points — OOS and OOT, complaints, recalls — named with the clause that governs them and deferred to their own discipline, because half a chapter would give the illusion of having covered them; the sorting rule between change and deviation, and the one official source that writes it down; and the revision of Chapter 1 put out for consultation in 2025, with what can be done now at no risk and what is better left alone.
Part VI — Proving it (ch. 24-27). What an inspector really looks at, with the published figures, their denominators and the caveats of the sources, and a declared absence where the statistic does not exist; the two policies on access to self-inspection reports, European and American, and the repealed section one of them still cites; the gap assessment method, with the four categories of gap including the self-inflicted one; and inspection readiness, with the questions about criteria and the five forms of expected evidence.
Plus 6 appendices. The register of 60 sources, with exact title, code, version or revision, date, status ascertained on 13 September 2026 and access date; the status matrix by jurisdiction, link by link and entry point by entry point; the 30 decisions the guide hands to the site, with who decides, on what basis, where it is recorded and with which tool; the data sheets for the 18 tools, with input, output, who fills in, who approves and the fields left <to be defined>; the glossary, which holds only the terms that change meaning according to the text using them and declares the gaps instead of filling them; and the register of 18 open contradiction cases, with both versions in the original language.
Read 20 pages before you buy
The free extract is made of real pages, not a sales summary: the two label families with their legend, the full table of contents with real page numbers, the pages where Article 10(1) and §1.8(vii) sit side by side, the table of the seventeen sources searched on self-inspection frequency, and the complete list of the 18 tools with format and source chapter. 20 pages in each of the two editions.
Specifications
| Format | A4 PDF — 252 pages (ENG edition) · 265 pages (ITA edition) |
| Edition | First edition · September 2026 · version 1.0 |
| Structure | 27 chapters in six parts + 6 appendices · 159 tables |
| Subject covered | The complete chain: process deviation, self-inspection finding, investigation, cause, CAPA, effectiveness check, review — with the other entry points (OOS and OOT, complaints, recalls, change, Product Quality Review trend) named, anchored to their clause and deferred to their own discipline |
| Jurisdictions and corpora | European Union (human use, investigational medicinal products, ATMPs, veterinary from 16 July 2026), United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, Japan, plus PIC/S and WHO — with the act, the clause and the verb cell by cell |
| Toolkit | 18 editable tools per language: 9 Excel workbooks (2,364 formulas across 55 worksheets) and 9 Word documents (211 tables). No pre-loaded operational values, no thresholds, no scoring scales, no compliance score |
| New tools | Three tools new to the GuideGxP catalogue: ★08 Deviation management SOP, ★09 Deviation opening and handling form, ★11 Batch impact assessment and extension |
| Editions | The guide and the toolkit exist in two separate editions, Italian and English, identical in structure: you choose the variant ITA - Italiano or ENG - English, at the same price |
| Label system | 12 labels — 5 on the status of the document, 7 on the nature of the assertion — for a total of 1,201 regulatory labels per edition |
| Sources | Full register in Appendix A: 60 sources with exact title, code, version or revision, date, status and access date |
| Decisions | 30 tracked decisions: who decides, on what basis, where it is recorded, with which toolkit tool |
| Open contradictions | 18 cases registered in Appendix F, with both versions in the original language, the clause, the date and the product scope |
| Regulatory cut-off | 12 September 2026 · status of the documents ascertained 13 September 2026 |
| Free preview | 20 pages per language |
| Price | €149.00 |
| Delivery and licence | Immediate download after purchase. Individual use, internal to the purchasing company. Digital product: nothing is shipped. |
Who it is for. QA Managers and Heads of Quality, quality units, production and quality control managers, internal auditors and self-inspection programme owners, Qualified Persons, investigation owners and CAPA owners, consultants and CDMOs. It is written for people who have to decide, write down what they decided and then answer for it: it does not summarise or paraphrase the guidelines, which are free to download from the official sites. It answers two different questions: which act says so, with which verb, for which jurisdiction and for which product scope, and what is left to decide where nothing is written anywhere.
Who it is not for. It is not an SOP, and it holds no text to be pasted into a procedure. It is not an audit course: conducting techniques appear only where they serve to explain what a text asks for and what it does not. It is not a laboratory manual: the analytical investigation of an out-of-specification result — phase I and phase II, retesting, hypothesis testing, invalidation — stays outside, and the boundary is declared every time the text reaches it. It contains no operational values to copy, neither in the book nor in the toolkit. And it is not legal advice: the legal readings are reconstructions anchored to texts cited with clause, date and verb, and where two official sources contradict each other the book reports both without choosing for the reader.
Do you have to defend, in front of an inspector, a choice that no source imposes?
Describe your product scope, the jurisdictions you operate in and the point where you are stuck. GuideGxP will review the request and, where appropriate, may put you in touch with a specialist matched to your technical needs and your geography.
Describe your situation →
No purchase required. Every request is reviewed before any referral to a specialist.
GuideGxP guides do not replace official regulation (European Commission, EMA, MHRA, FDA, Health Canada, Swissmedic, PMDA, PIC/S, WHO, ICH, ISO): they are operational support tools, and the user remains responsible for applying the rules in force in their own corporate context. The official texts cited are freely available and should be kept to hand while reading: this guide does not replace them. Guidelines have no force of law in themselves: binding force comes from the act of the jurisdiction, which this guide states clause by clause and verb by verb. Content referring to Regulation (EU) 2025/2091 concerns veterinary medicinal products only, and the consolidated version of reference is that of 16 July 2026; content referring to the revision of EudraLex Chapter 1 concerns a text not published at the cut-off and does not constitute a regulatory requirement. No operational value, threshold or scoring scale is pre-loaded in the book or in the toolkit. Regulatory cut-off: 12 September 2026. Digital product: nothing is shipped.
