SAMPLE DELIVERY / SAR-DEMO-PACK-01
See the opinion, and the evidence behind it.
A synthetic Study illustrates how a professional recommendation connects to source passages, revision checks, open issues and the client’s next steps.
01 / THE OPINION
Current recommendation: hold acceptance.
The collection-date inconsistency was corrected; two key uncertainties remain unresolved.
Appendix B and the DEV-02 impact assessment remain missing. The report’s conclusion of no deviation impact is not yet substantiated. This recommendation applies only to the agreed B1 delivery scope.
This example assumes the engagement permits a limited opinion after one revision round despite missing inputs. If the contract requires appendix review, work must wait, pause or undergo an explicit scope change.
02 / FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE
Open each finding to inspect changes and limits.
Initial review: protocol v1, amendment v1, report v1, table v1
Revision: protocol and amendment retained; report v2, table v2, reply v1
SYN-F01Collection-day inconsistencyResolved · Document consistency only
Initial evidence
Amendment v1 · p.1 §1 changes Day14 to Day15; Report v1 · p.2 §2 still states Day14.
Revision verification
Report v2 · p.2 now states Day15, consistent with the amendment, Table v2 · p.2 Table1C and Reply v1 · p.1.
Confirms consistency among the agreed documents, not revalidation of all underlying collection data.
SYN-F02Missing Appendix BOpen
The report references Appendix B; the table manifest still records it as missing. Neither B0 nor B1 includes the appendix, so dependent content cannot be checked.
Next: the CRO supplies the appendix or clarifies the reference; the reviewer checks the affected scope. A reply is not evidence that the appendix was supplied or reviewed.
SYN-F03Insufficient support for the deviation conclusionOpen
The “no deviation impact” conclusion in Report §4 is unchanged, but new information in Table v2 indicates potential DEV-02 impact, with the assessment still outstanding.
Unchanged wording still needs renewed verification. The conclusion is not substantiated, and a specific scientific impact has not thereby been demonstrated.
Why did some AI candidates not become formal findings?
AI flagged inconsistent observation duration. The reviewer checked the protocol and report, both stating Day1–28, and rejected the false positive. The candidate, decision and evidence remain distinct.
03 / THE COMPLETE DELIVERABLE
One opinion. Eight parts of a complete delivery.
Enable clients to inspect scope, evidence and completion rather than receiving only a conclusion.
01Scope & Exclusions
Agreed documents and specified conclusions for one Study; one revision check; excludes full raw-data recalculation and other stated work.
02Input Baseline
Four B0 versions and five B1 versions. Missing appendices are listed separately, not invented as received inputs.
03Professional Work Product
Hold recommendation; SYN-F01 resolved and SYN-F02/03 open, with coverage and limitations retained.
04Evidence Traceability
Key opinions reference exact report, amendment, table and reply versions and source locations.
05Review & Resolution Record
Retains initial review, replies, revisions, false-positive rejection and local resolution evidence. No real signature exists.
06Final Status
Hold acceptance within the declared B1 scope; the Sponsor decision has not been made.
07Open Issues & Residual Risk
Appendix B and DEV-02 assessment remain outstanding. CRO supplies evidence, reviewer verifies; no actual deadline is set.
08Program Publication
Everything remains within this review; Source acceptance and Program Memory publication are not approved.
04 / WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Turn uncertainties into clear next actions.
CRO supplies evidence and necessary revisions
Supply Appendix B and the DEV-02 assessment, and explain or revise the report conclusion.
Client confirms the continuation scope
Check whether agreed rounds cover the work; confirm additional scope and fees when needed before authorizing a new baseline.
Professional recheck, independent client decision
Recheck affected conclusions and issue a new pack if needed; retain the prior opinion and let the client decide acceptance.