ComplianceWorxs ← All Case Files
Inspection Case File · Data Integrity Exposure
Case File #07

Data Integrity Risk Authorization

The Data Was Complete. The Authorization Trail Was Not.

Regulatory Citations 21 CFR Part 11 · FDA DI Guidance 2018 · ALCOA+
Decision Failure Data integrity authorization record absent at validation closure
Operational Consequence Retrospective DI assessment required · Written re-inspection commitment
Inspection Trigger

Investigator reviewed GxP computer system validation records for the firm's laboratory information management system placed in service January 2023, including the validation summary report, IQ/OQ/PQ protocols, audit trail configuration, and access control documentation.

Decision Failure

The firm could not produce a formal data integrity authorization record identifying who made the determination that the system met 21 CFR Part 11 and ALCOA+ requirements, what evidence was reviewed before that determination, or what regulatory standard governed the authorization.

Regulatory Exposure

21 CFR Part 11 requires that computerized systems used in regulated activities meet specific requirements for electronic records. FDA's Data Integrity Guidance establishes that firms must document the determination that systems are fit for intended purpose under ALCOA+ principles. Without a formal authorization record, the determination cannot be verified during inspection.

Decision Defense Record

A data integrity authorization documenting the ALCOA+ compliance assessment, the evidence evaluated before system activation, and the named decision owner accountable for the regulatory determination would have provided the investigator with a complete, defensible authorization record.

The inspector pulled the audit trail. The data was intact. Then they asked: "Who authorized the data review, and what was the documented rationale for each decision?"

That question ends careers. Not because the data was compromised — but because the authorization logic was never captured as a formal record.

This case file gives you that record.

Section 01

What the Investigator Asked

483 Observation

During inspection of computer system validation records for the firm's laboratory information management system placed in GxP service in January 2023, the investigator requested documentation of the formal data integrity risk assessment performed prior to system activation, identification of the individual who authorized the determination that the system met the firm's data integrity requirements under 21 CFR Part 11 and FDA's Data Integrity Guidance, and the specific evidence evaluated before that authorization was made. The system validation package contained executed IQ/OQ/PQ protocols, a validation summary report with QA signature, audit trail configuration documentation, and an access control matrix. No formal data integrity authorization record was present in the validation package or the firm's quality management system.

Inspector's Question

"Who authorized the determination that this system meets your data integrity requirements — and what evidence was evaluated before that decision was made?"

For GxP computerized systems, FDA's Data Integrity Guidance requires firms to document the determination that each system is fit for its intended purpose and meets ALCOA+ data integrity principles. This determination must be made before the system is placed in service, by a named decision authority, based on specific evidence reviewed before the authorization. A validation summary signed by QA records that the validation package was reviewed. It does not record who authorized the data integrity determination, what evidence supported it, or which regulatory standard governed the decision.

A QA signature on a validation summary is a review record. A data integrity authorization is a decision record. They are not the same document.
Section 02

Evidence Present vs. Authorization Missing

What Existed What Was Missing
✓ Validated LIMS with executed IQ/OQ/PQ protocols on file → Formal data integrity authorization record at validation closure
✓ Audit trail configuration documented in validation summary → Named decision authority accountable for the DI determination
✓ Access controls and user permission matrix documented → Evidence log showing what was assessed before authorization
✓ Audit trail review procedure approved and in place → ALCOA+ compliance assessment with documented determination
✓ Computer system validation protocol executed with QA approval → Regulatory standard explicitly applied to the authorization decision
✓ QA signature on validation summary report → Timestamped authorization statement from the responsible decision owner
A QA signature on a validation summary records that the validation package was reviewed and found acceptable. It does not document who authorized the determination that the system meets the organization's data integrity requirements, what evidence was evaluated before that determination was made, or which regulatory standard governed the authorization.
Section 03The Operational Cost — Retrospective data integrity assessment required for all GxP computerized systems. Audit trail review procedure revised to require formal authorization at each review cycle. CSV protocol updated to include mandatory DI authorization at validation closure. Written commitment to re-inspection with corrected documentation.
Section 04DDR Reconstruction — The complete Decision Defense Record for this data integrity authorization: named decision authority, ALCOA+ compliance assessment, evidence evaluated before system activation, regulatory standard applied, and timestamped authorization statement.
Section 05Authorization Model — The five required elements for data integrity authorization under 21 CFR Part 11 and FDA DI Guidance, including the evidence standard and the ALCOA+ compliance determination structure FDA expects to find at system validation closure.
Section 06Preventive Control — Mandatory data integrity authorization checkpoint embedded in the CSV validation closure protocol, with separate QA and Data Integrity Officer sign-off required before any GxP computerized system is placed in service.
🔒
Four Sections Remaining

The full inspection consequence analysis, complete DDR reconstruction, authorization model, and preventive controls are included in the Case File download.

Get the authorization framework sent to your inbox

Download the Complete Case File — $149
🔒 Secure checkout · Stripe · Instant delivery
Need all 10 decision scenarios? Get the complete series — $875 (save $615)
Decision Defensibility Infrastructure

Does your organization have authorization records that hold up under this level of scrutiny?

The Decision Ownership Assessment identifies your open decision gaps in 8 minutes.

Take the Assessment → No account required · Results delivered immediately