Historical-record volume, sites, data sources and assurance requirements set the delivery effort. Every proposal confirms the boundary, customer effort, measures and fixed price before work begins.
Use the controls below to describe the delivery context. The readiness review provides the final go/no-go decision and fixed scope.
Historical-record volume, sites, data sources and assurance needs determine delivery effort. Company headcount does not.
Planning context: 250–499 records, 1 site(s), 1 source(s), standard historical review.
See how RepeatProof surfaces related quality history, explains why it was found and keeps the final judgement with your team.
No customer data or integration is required.Quality leaders who want to understand the method before a conversation.
Discuss the repeat-quality problem, available history and the most credible next step.
A short, practical conversation with no commitment.Manufacturers deciding whether a focused readiness review is worthwhile.
Establish whether one priority quality problem has enough usable history and measurable effort to justify a controlled pilot.
50% is credited to a pilot commissioned within 30 days.Quality teams that want a fixed go/no-go decision before committing to implementation.
Test related-history retrieval and investigation preparation on an approved historical NCR, CAPA and complaint dataset.
One site, 250–1,000 records and 3–5 users.One site with a named quality lead, 250–1,000 records and three to five users.
Run one proven workflow against one read-only source with named users, monitoring and customer review.
Integration, validation and customer-cloud requirements are scoped separately.Teams whose historical pilot supports a controlled operational test.
Continue a proven historical-evidence workflow with monitoring, support and controlled improvement.
Available after a successful controlled pilot.Manufacturers ready to keep a successful CAPA workflow in service.
Operate a connected workflow with broader usage, monitoring and a defined value-review cadence.
Additional sites, sources and workflows are scoped separately.Manufacturers scaling a proven operational use case.
Scope multi-site, customer-cloud, validation or enhanced assurance requirements.
Quoted only after the required boundary is understood.Organisations with complex deployment, assurance or procurement needs.
Prices exclude VAT. These are scope-led planning ranges, not automatic quotes. Final scope explicitly prices additional sites, sources, integration and validation work.
The five-day review focuses on one priority problem and ends with a clear recommendation: proceed, change scope or stop.
Confirm record volume, current preparation effort, reviewer roles and the problem worth testing.
Review field quality, comparable records, normalisation needs and evidence gaps.
Record the governance boundary, success measures, customer effort, timetable and fixed price.
The first five founding customers receive the complete CAPA Historical Evidence Pilot at 25% below the scoped range in return for approved data access, structured feedback and jointly reviewed measurement.
The saving is consideration for access, feedback and method learning—never for praise. RepeatProof cannot identify a customer or publish confidential information without separate written approval.
The engagement plan states who is needed, which fields are required and how much review time is expected.
Named people approve the scope, prepare the export, review evidence and confirm the data boundary.
Event type, description or failure mode, product and process context, action links and available cost fields.
A kickoff, data review, structured output reviews and final outcome decision; expected hours are recorded in the proposal.
QMS replacement, autonomous quality decisions, product disposition, automatic CAPA closure, regulatory certification or unbounded custom development.
Share the record volume and problem. We will tell you whether a fit call, readiness review, controlled pilot or no engagement is the credible next step.