It’s structured checking of references, data accuracy, and evidence-to-claim alignment—so the wording, numbers, and context are scientifically defensible and consistent across the material.

No. This is the scientific/AQP support layer that strengthens materials before final signatory review. It reduces rework and improves the quality of what reaches sign-off.

Each week you’ll get a short learning module plus a supporting podcast, followed by a live session to apply it to practical scenarios and real-world patterns from completed PMCPA cases. Most teams find the learning is immediately usable in current job bags.

It’s a clear supportability status for each key claim based on the references provided. “Needs qualification” means the claim can work but must be framed more accurately (population, endpoint, limitations, magnitude, etc.).

Yes—optional. If you want a signatory-ready pack, I can return a structured claims & substantiation table alongside the marked-up asset.

Yes. I can align outputs to your preferred formats (claim tables, referencing style, evidence logs) so it drops into your workflow.

The asset file, the references (PDFs/links), and (if available) your intended audience/channel and any key claims you want checked first.

Yes—by agreement. For urgent items (congress/launch), we can prioritise the highest-risk claims first and complete the remainder to an agreed plan.

Either. One-off packs are fine, or we can set up an ongoing outsourced support model for predictable capacity and turnaround.