21 CFR PART 11 · EU ANNEX 11 · ALCOA+

Where would this system actually fail an inspection?

43 controls across both frameworks, scored on evidence rather than intent — because "we do this" and "we can show an inspector we do this" are different answers, and the gap between them is where findings come from.

See the failure patterns
A structured self-assessment — not a certification, a regulatory opinion, or legal advice. No score here has standing with any regulator. Work from the primary sources and your own quality system.
Built by Kalilur Rahman29 years in regulated enterprise IT and validated systems. The control set is public rule text; what's paid is what an inspector does with it.
Assessment

Scored on evidence, not intent

Used only to label the report generated in your browser. Nothing is transmitted or stored — which matters, because an honest self-assessment is a candid record of your own gaps.

0/43 assessed
Gap report

Ordered by inspection exposure

0/100

By framework

Gaps, highest exposure first

Failure patterns

The shapes findings actually take

Across inspections the same few patterns recur. Most are self-detectable before anyone else finds them — which is the entire point of assessing yourself first.

Pricing

Free assessment. Paid judgement.

Free

$0
  • All 43 controls, both frameworks + ALCOA+
  • Evidence-based scoring with N/A justification
  • Weighted score & maturity level
  • Gap report ordered by inspection exposure
  • Markdown export of the full assessment
  • Inspector's-eye notes per control
  • Failure-pattern casebook & remediation phrasing

Inspector's Edition

$129 one-time
  • Everything in Free
  • Inspector's-eye notes — what gets probed first, what evidence is accepted vs rejected
  • Failure-pattern casebook — the eight recurring shapes
  • Remediation phrasing rules that survive QA review
  • Auditor-review AI prompt before you present it
  • Unlimited systems — lifetime on this device
Get the edition — $129

Facilitated audit

Let's talk
  • Assessment run with your team
  • Evidence review & remediation planning
  • Inspection readiness rehearsal
  • Engagement — roadmap
Enquire
FAQ

Straight answers

Does a good score mean we're compliant?

No, and nothing here has any standing with a regulator. This is a structured way to find your own gaps before someone else does. Compliance depends on your predicate rules, your jurisdiction, and how the system is actually used — none of which a self-assessment can determine for you.

Why does the scale separate "documented" from "verified"?

Because that distinction is where findings live. A control performed correctly but with no retrievable evidence is indistinguishable from an absent control during an inspection. Separating them tells you whether your problem is practice or proof — and those need completely different remediation.

Is the Annex 11 content current?

Every §-reference follows the 2011 Annex 11 and the page says so explicitly. A revised Annex 11 went to public consultation in 2025; that draft substantially restructures the annex and its numbering does not map one-to-one onto the 2011 clauses. Check whether a revised text has been adopted and re-verify before citing any reference in a regulated record.

How is this different from ValidoQA?

Different job, same buyer. ValidoQA drafts validation protocols — IQ/OQ/PQ, traceability, GAMP categorisation. Part11Pass audits electronic-record and electronic-signature controls on a system that already exists. Teams typically need both, at different points.

Is anything we enter sent anywhere?

No. There's no backend. The assessment, scoring and report generation all run in your browser. That matters more here than in most tools: an honest self-assessment is a candid written record of your own weaknesses.

I already have a code.

Enter it here — it unlocks the inspector's notes and casebook on this device.

Copied ✓