25 years in regulated industries
Life sciences, insurance, energy, financial services.
Runs in your environment
Bring your own model. No regulated content leaves your tenancy.
Evidence, not extraction
Every value keeps its link to file, page and version.
Sits under your system of record
Your RIM, eTMF and submission platform stay where they are.
Click through it at your own pace. No form, no sign-up.
Your own correspondence documents. An implementation engineer assigned to you.
A day with one information request
Two weeks gone before the first real regulatory decision gets made.
Your regulatory people spend the two weeks on regulatory strategy.
Illustrative. Timings describe the workflow, not a measured customer result.
How It Works
The query is classified, the underlying concept extracted, the response deadline logged, and any commitment buried in the text pulled out as a tracked item.
Source sections are identified and the excerpts retrieved, so the package reaching an SME already holds the evidence and the real due date.
Every figure stays linked to its file, page and version, plus who checked it and when, from intake through to closure.
Agents assemble the evidence. Your people still decide and sign.
What a reviewer opens
Illustrative example. Not drawn from customer correspondence.
Fits your environment
Your RIM stays your RIM. Your submission platform stays your submission platform. This is the layer underneath them, where documents get validated and evidence-anchored before anything lands in a system of record.
That also means a platform migration changes where your documents live, not how they are governed.
Where your team works
Adlib evidence layer
Validated, classified, evidence-anchored. Bring your own model.
Where documents actually come from
Deploys in your environment or hosted, with the same controls either way. The audit trail starts at intake, not where a pipeline happened to be instrumented.
Who this is for
You are answering across multiple health authorities at volume. Deadlines slip because of the volume, not because of effort. The people who should be doing regulatory strategy are reconciling documents.
You own the commitment register, the deadline tracking and the audit trail. You need the answer to "what did we promise, and where is it" to be a lookup rather than an archaeology project.
The business is evaluating AI tools without you, and you carry the risk when one enters a validated environment. You want the next AI request to be a configuration conversation, not a new qualification project.
Proof of value
You already know what the right response looked like, how long it took, and how many people it pulled in. That makes your closed correspondence the fairest test set there is, and the only one where the answer key already exists.
First
Three to five information requests you have already closed. You choose them, including the one that went badly.
Then
A working session with your team. Classification, source sections, routing package, cited draft, QC trail. Side by side with what your team actually produced.
Not
No fee, no production access, no new vendor onboarding. A couple of hours from one SME and a session with regulatory and IT in the same room.
This capability is in active development with design partners shaping it. If you want the workflow built around how your team actually answers, this is the point in the cycle where that is still possible.
Questions
No. It sits underneath them. Documents are validated and evidence-anchored before anything reaches your system of record, which is a different job from storing and publishing them.
We are not competing with the model. A fluent draft that cannot point to the section it came from does not survive review, and that failure comes from ungoverned input rather than from the model. We govern the input and keep the citation attached.
Deployment is your choice, in your environment or hosted, with the same controls either way. Bring your own model.
Nothing, and roughly two hours from one SME plus a session with regulatory and IT together. It is not a paid proof of concept and there is no obligation attached to it.
Not yet. The correspondence capability is in active development, which is exactly why a walkthrough on your own closed queries is useful now rather than after the fact.
Extraction pulls values out. Traceability keeps each one connected to the source page, field and version it came from, through review, QC and closure. The second one is what an inspection asks for.