Skip to main content

The medicines business | A question to investigate

Traceability has to work when something does not match

An electronic record is most valuable when the physical product and its documentation do not immediately agree. A missing transaction detail, uncertain partner status or inconsistent identifier can create a difficult exception across organisations. NEUVIOR is interested in the review work around these discrepancies: what evidence is needed, who can resolve the issue and how a team avoids mistaking an apparently complete digital record for a resolved supply-chain question.

Film credits

In the conversation.

NEUVIOR and our founder’s perspectives have appeared across science, business and technology publications.

University of Warwick IATL | AI Ethics NowpharmaphorumTechRadar ProET PharmaFinancial TimesPharmaceutical TechnologyPharmaTimesManufacturing ChemistDigital HealthDaily BusinessTheBusinessDesk.comStartups MagazineInsider MediaYorkshire PostYork PressBusinessCloud

Reporting, commentary, letters and podcast appearances | Read each feature for its format and source.

Design for the exception, not only the ideal transaction

A demonstration with perfectly matched records can hide the work that happens during a real discrepancy. Different parties may describe the same event differently or hold information at different levels of detail. A proposed review would start with one exception category and the existing escalation process. It would identify the decision that is blocked and the people authorised to unblock it, rather than treating data exchange itself as proof that the operational problem has been solved.

The US framework has defined scope

FDA describes DSCSA as a framework for package-level tracing of certain prescription medicines (FDA, n.d.). Its product-tracing questions and answers explain trading-partner responsibilities and exclusions (FDA, n.d.). That scope matters: not every product or transfer is covered in the same way. A proposed NEUVIOR evaluation would preserve the relevant definitions and current official guidance, with specialist review where required. It would not claim to certify DSCSA compliance or replace established traceability systems.

Make ownership explicit across organisations

A manufacturer, repackager, wholesale distributor and dispenser may have different responsibilities and information. A useful exception record should distinguish the origin of a discrepancy from the party currently able to resolve it. It should also preserve the original evidence and any subsequent clarification. A consolidated view can be helpful only if it does not obscure who supplied each fact or imply that one participant has verified something it has merely received from another.

A discrepancy record with a clear next step

The proposed deliverable would connect the unresolved discrepancy to the evidence required and the party able to provide it. It would preserve what has been verified separately from what has merely been received. That could support a practical exception discussion while leaving existing transaction systems and authorised supply decisions in their established roles.

A public decision brief | An illustrative example

Open the question.
Inspect the reasoning.

Choose a business question, then look beneath its claim. See what a public source supports, what depends on the local setting and what a useful next step could be.

A medicines or implementation team considering an AI-supported evidence review.

Would a quicker review make the decision better?

The interesting question is the complete piece of work: finding relevant material, checking it, correcting the draft and reaching an accountable decision.

A proposition to investigate

Less preparation. The same ability to challenge.

An evidence-review approach could be useful if it reduces avoidable preparation while preserving source access, relevant qualifications and professional checking. That is the proposed value to test. No time reduction, accuracy improvement or customer result is asserted in this example.

The proposition is constructed for this public brief. It is not a published finding about PHARMORIS.

What the next brief would contain

A decision someone
can commission.

The decision
Whether one defined review task merits an agreed evaluation.
The comparator
The team's existing complete review process, including checking and corrections.
The evidence
Representative cases, source records, reviewer decisions, complete-task effort and exceptions.
Stop or redesign
Stop or redesign if source checking weakens, errors are unacceptable or the complete task offers insufficient value.

Constructed public example | Not PHARMORIS-generated software output or a measured customer result.

Keep this example brief

A controlled proposed PHARMORIS study

The first study could use synthetic transactions or permitted historical exception records stripped of unnecessary commercial identifiers. Inputs would include product identifiers, transaction-event descriptions, documented discrepancy categories and the current routing process. The comparator would be the existing exception-review workflow. An experimental evidence brief would be assessed retrospectively, with no live verification requests, supply decisions or automated exchange with trading partners. The study would investigate preparation and review, not operational traceability infrastructure.

Measure resolution evidence, not visual completeness

Candidate measures include correct identification of missing information, accurate routing to the responsible party, preservation of source evidence and reviewer correction effort. The evaluation should distinguish resolved, awaiting evidence and unresolved states. A high proportion of populated fields is not a sufficient outcome if the information does not support the decision. It should also count false resolution, where an apparently convincing record leads a reviewer to overlook a material discrepancy.

Reasons to reject further development

The study should stop if source records cannot be reconciled reliably, if required legal or technical expertise is absent, or if experimental output is used to authorise a live transaction. It should pause when a change in official requirements or exchange conventions affects the comparison. If the organisation’s existing traceability platform already resolves the problem adequately, the evidence should say so. A second system is only justified when a specific unresolved workflow has demonstrable value.

A focused US industry discussion

Bring one recurring traceability exception, the information currently used and the organisations involved in resolving it. We can discuss whether a controlled review would answer a useful operational question and what success would mean. The commercial opportunity is a clearer handling process for a defined discrepancy, with an honest comparator and measurable review burden, rather than a broad claim that another layer of software can replace the responsibilities and infrastructure already in place.

Sources and scope

FDA | Drug Supply Chain Security Act | FDA | Product tracing questions and answers

Discuss a traceability exception

FDA (n.d.) Drug Supply Chain Security Act. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-supply-chain-integrity/drug-supply-chain-security-act-dscsa (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

FDA (n.d.) Product tracing questions and answers. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-supply-chain-security-act-dscsa/drug-supply-chain-security-act-product-tracing-requirements-frequently-asked-questions (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Another useful angle.

NEWSPerspectives & features
Open newsroom