CAHIR Solutions

Interactive guide

21 CFR Part 11 and electronic records compliance for SaMD, CDS and AI-enabled devices

Most Part 11 material is written for paper-era pharma. This guide is written for software that touches regulated decisions: which of your records are actually Part 11 records, what ALCOA+ data integrity means for a model version register, what an immutable audit trail has to capture, and how electronic signatures work. Four browser-only tools let you test your own position as you read.

What 21 CFR Part 11 actually covers

Part 11 sets the conditions under which FDA accepts electronic records and electronic signatures as equivalent to paper records and handwritten signatures. It is not a standalone obligation to keep records. It attaches to records that another regulation — the predicate rule — already requires you to maintain or submit. For a device software company the predicate rules are the quality system requirements now harmonised with ISO 13485 under the Quality Management System Regulation, plus reporting and complaint requirements.

That single point decides most scoping arguments. If a regulation requires the record and you keep it electronically, Part 11 applies: validate the system, control access, keep a secure computer-generated audit trail, and if anyone signs it, apply the signature controls. If no regulation requires it, Part 11 does not apply — although good data integrity practice still does, because working records have a habit of becoming evidence.

Electronic records lifecycle: create record, apply e-signature, audit trail, retain, retrieve
The Part 11 lifecycle. Each stage has its own controls, and the audit trail runs underneath all of them.

Which records are Part 11 records?

A working map for software teams. The right-hand columns are the two questions people most often get wrong: whether an audit trail is required, and whether a signature is.

RecordPart 11 record?Audit trailElectronic signature
Design history file and design controlsYesYesYes — design reviews and approvals
Software validation and verification resultsYesYesYes — test approval
Model version register and release recordsYesYesYes — release authorisation
Training data provenance and dataset lineageYes, where relied on as design evidenceYesUsually not
Complaints, CAPA and post-market surveillanceYesYesYes — investigation closure
Inference logs used to support performance claimsYes, when retained as evidenceYesNo
CDS recommendation shown to a clinicianGenerally no — clinical data under other rulesRecommendedNo
Marketing material and internal working notesNoNoNo

ALCOA+ data integrity, attribute by attribute

ALCOA+ is the language inspectors use when they ask whether your records can be trusted. Part 11 controls are how you answer. Each attribute below is paired with the control that evidences it in a software product.

AttributeWhat it meansControl that proves it
AttributableYou can tell who created or changed the recordUnique named accounts, no shared logins, identity bound to every write
LegibleThe record can be read and understood for its full lifeHuman-readable export, documented field meanings, stable formats
ContemporaneousRecorded at the time of the activityServer-generated timestamps with a fixed time source, no back-dating
OriginalThe first capture, or a verified true copyWrite-once storage of the source record and its checksum
AccurateThe record reflects what actually happenedInput validation, review workflow, reconciliation against source systems
CompleteNothing is silently dropped, including repeats and failuresAppend-only audit trail capturing deletions and superseded values
ConsistentSequence and format hold across systemsOne time zone of record, controlled vocabularies, shared identifiers
EnduringThe record survives for its retention periodRetention policy, backup and restore testing, media migration plan
AvailableIt can be produced for review when askedInspector-ready search and export of records with their audit trails
ALCOA+ wheel showing the nine data integrity attributes
The nine ALCOA+ attributes. Weakness in any one of them is where findings start.

Immutable audit trails and electronic signatures

An audit trail satisfies Part 11 when it is secure, computer-generated and time-stamped, and records who did what and when for creation, modification and deletion of records. It must keep the previous value when something changes, must never obscure earlier entries, must be retained at least as long as the record, and must be available for review and copying. The practical failure mode is not a missing feature — it is an audit trail an administrator can edit, or one that logs the change without the old value.

Electronic signatures carry their own requirements. Each signature needs two distinct identification components at the first signing in a continuous session, and both components at each subsequent signing if the session has lapsed. The signed record must show the printed name of the signer, the date and time, and the meaning of the signature — reviewed, approved, released. Signatures must be permanently linked to the record so they cannot be copied elsewhere, and they cannot be shared or reassigned. Before first use you file the certification required by 11.100(c) with FDA, in paper, with a handwritten signature.

Open and closed systems

TopicClosed systemOpen system
Who controls accessThe organisation responsible for the recordsAccess is not controlled by that organisation
Typical exampleYour validated internal QMS or eDHF platformRecords exchanged through an uncontrolled third-party portal
Baseline controlsValidation, audit trail, access control, e-signature controlsAll of the closed-system controls
Additional controlsNone beyond the baselineDocument encryption and, where appropriate, digital signature standards

Validation: from CSV volume to risk-based assurance

Part 11 requires validation of systems holding regulated records. FDA's Computer Software Assurance guidance changed how that effort should be spent: identify the intended use, assess the risk if the feature fails, then choose an assurance activity proportionate to that risk and keep only the record needed to show it happened. The chart below is the shape teams should aim for.

Direct patient safety or product quality impact

100% of assurance effort

Scripted testing, recorded evidence, independent review, full traceability

Indirect impact on a quality decision

65% of assurance effort

Risk-based scripted testing with lighter documentation

Supporting or administrative function

30% of assurance effort

Unscripted or exploratory testing, issue records only

No quality or safety impact

12% of assurance effort

Vendor assurance plus intended-use confirmation

Illustrative distribution of effort, not a regulatory allocation.

What is different for SaMD, CDS and AI-enabled devices

Software as a medical device

Your design history file, software validation evidence and release approvals usually live entirely in electronic tools. That makes the tooling itself part of your compliance surface: an issue tracker used to record design decisions, or a pipeline used to approve a release, is holding Part 11 records whether or not it was bought for that purpose.

Clinical decision support

The recommendation a clinician sees is clinical data, not a Part 11 record. But the records proving how that recommendation is produced and controlled — the logic version in production, its validation, the basis a clinician can independently review, complaint handling — are quality records. Keep the evidence supporting your position on device status under the same controls; it is the first thing asked for when that position is challenged.

AI-enabled device software functions

AI adds record types the regulation never anticipated: training and evaluation dataset provenance, model version registers, retraining triggers, and inference logs kept to support performance claims. Treat each production model version as a controlled record with a release approval and a traceable link to its validation evidence. If you filed a predetermined change control plan, your Part 11 audit trail is where the change log it promises actually lives — see the PCCP guide for how the two fit together.

Part 11 and EU Annex 11 side by side

Teams selling in both markets rarely need two systems, but they do need to know where the expectations differ. Annex 11 is more explicit about supplier oversight and periodic review; Part 11 is more prescriptive about signature mechanics.

Topic21 CFR Part 11EU Annex 11
ScopeUS electronic records and signatures under a predicate ruleEU computerised systems used in GxP activities
Risk basisRisk-based scope-and-application approach, reinforced by CSAExplicit risk management across the system lifecycle
SuppliersHandled through your own supplier controlsNamed expectation to assess and audit suppliers and service providers
Audit trailsSecure, computer-generated, time-stamped, retained with the recordRequired for GMP-relevant changes and deletions, regularly reviewed
SignaturesDetailed component, manifestation and certification requirementsEquivalent legal weight, permanently linked to the record

For device-side European requirements, see the EU MDR and UKCA guide.

What Part 11 does not require

  • There is no FDA-certified or FDA-approved Part 11 system, and no vendor can sell you compliance.
  • Blockchain, biometrics and hardware tokens are options, not requirements.
  • An electronic signature does not have to resemble a handwritten one; it has to be attributable, permanently linked and manifested in the record.
  • Part 11 does not require you to keep every record electronically — it governs the ones you choose to.
  • Validation volume is not the measure. FDA's Computer Software Assurance guidance asks for evidence proportionate to risk.

Interactive Part 11 tools

Four tools you can use straight away. Everything runs in your browser — nothing is stored, sent or logged, and you do not need an account.

Applicability checker

Five questions to work out whether a particular record falls under Part 11. Everything runs in your browser; nothing is stored or sent.

  1. 1. Is this record required by a regulation — for example design controls, complaints, CAPA, validation or release approval?

    Part 11 only bites on records a predicate rule requires you to keep or submit.

  2. 2. Do you keep or submit that record electronically instead of on paper?

    A printed, signed master held as the official record moves you outside Part 11 for that record.

  3. 3. Does anyone apply an approval or signature to it inside the system?

    Approvals, sign-offs and review completions are electronic signatures.

  4. 4. Is it a model version, training-data provenance, configuration or release record for an AI-enabled or CDS device?

    These are design and production records, and inspectors increasingly ask for them first.

  5. 5. Is the record held or exchanged through a system whose access you do not control?

    That makes it an open system, which needs encryption and stronger identity controls.

Answer all five questions to see a verdict.

ALCOA+ readiness scorecard

Rate each data integrity attribute against the evidence you could actually show an inspector today.

Overall readiness 0%

Attributable

Not started

Unique named accounts, no shared logins, identity bound to every write

Legible

Not started

Human-readable export, documented field meanings, stable formats

Contemporaneous

Not started

Server-generated timestamps with a fixed time source, no back-dating

Original

Not started

Write-once storage of the source record and its checksum

Accurate

Not started

Input validation, review workflow, reconciliation against source systems

Complete

Not started

Append-only audit trail capturing deletions and superseded values

Consistent

Not started

One time zone of record, controlled vocabularies, shared identifiers

Enduring

Not started

Retention policy, backup and restore testing, media migration plan

Available

Not started

Inspector-ready search and export of records with their audit trails

Weakest areas to fix first

  • AttributableUnique named accounts, no shared logins, identity bound to every write
  • LegibleHuman-readable export, documented field meanings, stable formats
  • ContemporaneousServer-generated timestamps with a fixed time source, no back-dating
  • OriginalWrite-once storage of the source record and its checksum
  • AccurateInput validation, review workflow, reconciliation against source systems
  • CompleteAppend-only audit trail capturing deletions and superseded values
  • ConsistentOne time zone of record, controlled vocabularies, shared identifiers
  • EnduringRetention policy, backup and restore testing, media migration plan
  • AvailableInspector-ready search and export of records with their audit trails

Audit trail and e-signature gap checklist

Twenty controls an inspector will look for. Tick off the ones you could evidence today.

0 of 20 complete (0%)

Records

Audit trails

Electronic signatures

Access and accountability

Validation and change

Control summary builder

Pick your situation and the page assembles a tailored electronic records control outline you can take into a working session.

Device type

System type

Risk level

21 CFR Part 11 electronic records control outline
Device type: Software as a medical device (SaMD)
System type: Closed system
Risk level: Direct safety or quality impact

1. Record inventory and scope
   - List each regulated record the system creates, holds or submits.
   - State the predicate rule behind each one.
   - Mark which are Part 11 records and which are working copies.

2. System validation
   - Scripted testing with recorded objective evidence and independent review.
   - Full requirement-to-test traceability, including negative and boundary cases.
   - Define the change control that re-triggers assurance activity.

3. Access control and identity
   - Unique named accounts, no shared logins, documented role permissions.
   - Joiner, mover and leaver process with periodic access review.
   - Authority checks so only permitted roles can sign or release.

4. Audit trail
   - Secure, computer-generated, time-stamped entries for create, modify and delete.
   - Previous values retained; earlier entries never obscured or overwritten.
   - Audit trail retained at least as long as the underlying record.
   - Defined review cadence, and a documented reviewer for exception events.

5. Electronic signatures
   - Two distinct identification components at first signing in a session.
   - Signature manifestation showing printed name, date and time, and meaning.
   - Signature permanently linked to its record and not transferable.
   - 11.100(c) certification letter to FDA on file, with the date it was sent.

6. Records retention, copies and availability
   - Retention period per record type, tied to the predicate rule.
   - Human-readable and electronic copies available for inspection.
   - Backup, restore testing and media migration plan.

7. People and procedures
   - Training records for everyone who creates, modifies or signs records.
   - Written policy holding individuals accountable for their signatures.
   - Deviation, incident and data integrity escalation route.

Educational outline only. It is not regulatory advice and does not replace your
quality system procedures or a review by your regulatory lead.

These tools are educational. They are not regulatory advice and do not replace your quality system procedures or review by a qualified regulatory professional.

Data governance in MedTech Copilot

The controls on this page, built into the tool

MedTech Copilot carries the data governance layer this guide describes: ALCOA+ aligned records, immutable audit trails on every document action, electronic signature capture with signer, timestamp and meaning, versioning across the total product lifecycle, and a change log that lines up with a predetermined change control plan. Lifecycle document drafting and device project tracking sit on the same record spine, so the evidence exists because of how the work was done, not because someone assembled it afterwards.

Frequently asked questions

The eight questions below are the short version. For the full set — scope, ALCOA+ records, audit trails, signatures, validation and enforcement myths — see the dedicated Part 11 FAQ.

Does 21 CFR Part 11 apply to software as a medical device?
Part 11 applies to electronic records and electronic signatures that a predicate rule requires you to keep or submit. For a SaMD manufacturer that usually means design history and design controls, complaint and CAPA records, software validation records, training and release approvals held electronically. It is not a blanket rule over everything your product stores; it is a rule about records the regulations already require.
Is a clinical decision support output a Part 11 record?
The recommendation itself is generally patient-care data governed by other rules, not a Part 11 record. But the records that prove how that output was produced and controlled — model version in production, release approval, configuration, validation evidence, complaint handling — are quality-system records, and when you keep them electronically Part 11 applies to them.
What does ALCOA+ mean in practice?
Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original and Accurate, plus Complete, Consistent, Enduring and Available. It is the data integrity vocabulary inspectors use. Part 11 controls are how you achieve it: unique user accounts make records attributable, computer-generated timestamps make them contemporaneous, immutable audit trails keep them original and complete, and retention and export controls keep them enduring and available.
What must an audit trail capture?
Secure, computer-generated, time-stamped entries that record who did what and when for create, modify and delete actions on electronic records, including the previous value where a record was changed. The audit trail must not obscure earlier entries, must be retained at least as long as the record itself, and must be available for review and copying by an inspector.
Do I need to send FDA a letter about electronic signatures?
Yes. Before or at the time you first use electronic signatures, 21 CFR 11.100(c) requires you to certify to FDA, in paper form with a handwritten signature, that electronic signatures in your organisation are the legally binding equivalent of handwritten signatures. It is a one-off certification covering the organisation, not one letter per system.
How does Computer Software Assurance change validation?
FDA's Computer Software Assurance guidance shifts effort from documentation volume to risk. High-risk features that directly affect product quality or patient safety get scripted testing and recorded evidence; low-risk features can be covered by unscripted or ad hoc testing with lighter records. The Part 11 obligations themselves are unchanged — you still validate, you just allocate the effort where the risk is.
What is the difference between an open and a closed system?
A closed system is one where access is controlled by the people responsible for the records. An open system is one where it is not — for example records exchanged through a third party you do not control. Open systems need the same controls plus additional measures such as document encryption and, where appropriate, digital signature standards.
Does Part 11 tell me which vendor or technology to use?
No. Part 11 sets outcomes, not products. There is no FDA-certified Part 11 system, no blockchain requirement, and no obligation to make an electronic signature look like a handwritten one. A vendor claim of being Part 11 compliant describes capability; the compliant use of that capability is still yours to demonstrate.
Share thisLinkedInXEmail