@pikaa-ai/pikaa 0.2.5 → 0.3.1

package/skills/analytical-method-validation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,299 @@
+---
+name: analytical-method-validation
+description: Plan, execute, and document validation, verification, and transfer of analytical procedures under the governing framework - ICH Q2(R2) and Q14, USP <1220>/<1225>/<1226>, ICH M10 bioanalytical, CLSI EP, or ISO/IEC 17025. Use for HPLC, LC-MS/MS, GC, CE, ICP-MS, dissolution, qNMR, qPCR, NIR, and ligand binding or cell-based assays whenever the question is whether a procedure is fit for its intended purpose. Triggers include "method validation", "analytical method validation", "AMV", "validation protocol", "acceptance criteria", "linearity", "reportable range", "accuracy and precision", "repeatability", "intermediate precision", "recovery", "LOD", "LOQ", "detection limit", "quantitation limit", "specificity", "robustness", "method transfer", "method comparison", "Deming", "Passing-Bablok", "Bland-Altman", "equivalence testing", "OOS investigation", "ICH Q2", "Q2(R2)", "Q14", "USP 1225", "ICH M10", "incurred sample reanalysis", "ISR", "CLSI EP", and any request to show that an assay works.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires Python 3.11+. Scripts use only the standard library - no numpy, scipy, or network access. Statistical distributions are computed from first principles so results are reproducible in any conforming interpreter.
+allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash
+metadata:
+  version: "1.0"
+  skill-author: K-Dense Inc.
+  last-reviewed: "2026-07-27"
+---
+
+# Analytical Method Validation
+
+## When to use
+
+Any time the question is whether an analytical procedure is fit for its intended purpose:
+designing a validation study, evaluating validation data, verifying a compendial procedure,
+transferring a procedure to another laboratory or instrument, or defending any of these in a
+report.
+
+## The two rules
+
+**1. Establish which framework governs before designing anything.** The same assay validates
+differently under ICH Q2(R2), USP <1225>, ICH M10, CLSI EP, and ISO/IEC 17025. They differ in
+which characteristics are required, how the studies are laid out, and whether numeric acceptance
+criteria are supplied at all. Blending them produces a protocol that satisfies none of them.
+
+**2. State acceptance criteria before collecting data.** Criteria chosen after seeing results are
+not acceptance criteria, and deciding them post hoc is a standing audit finding. ICH Q2(R2)
+deliberately supplies almost no numeric criteria — they have to come from the specification, the
+analytical target profile (ICH Q14 section 3), or development data. ICH M10 is the exception: it
+supplies explicit numbers, and they differ between chromatographic assays and ligand binding
+assays.
+
+## Scope
+
+This skill plans studies, computes the statistics correctly, and structures the documentation. It
+does **not** decide that a procedure is validated, release a batch, accept or reject a run, close
+an investigation, or substitute for the analyst, the technical reviewer, the quality unit, or the
+regulator. Every script reports; none of them concludes.
+
+## Copyright boundary
+
+ICH guidelines are published openly and licensed for reuse with acknowledgement, so their
+requirements are encoded directly in this skill. **USP general chapters, CLSI EP documents, and
+ISO standards are copyrighted and paywalled.** For those, this skill supplies the designation,
+scope, and where to obtain an authorised copy — never the text, never invented thresholds. Do not
+ask an agent to retrieve, transcribe, or reconstruct their content. If a number matters and it
+lives in a paywalled document, read it from the authorised copy.
+
+## Frameworks
+
+```bash
+cd skills/analytical-method-validation/scripts
+python3 plan_validation.py --list-frameworks
+```
+
+| Key | Governs | Numeric criteria supplied |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `ich-q2r2` | Release and stability testing of drug substances and products | Almost none — you derive them |
+| `ich-m10` | Bioanalytical concentration measurement (PK, TK, BE) | Yes, and they differ by modality |
+| `usp-1220` | Compendial procedure lifecycle, three stages | Paywalled |
+| `usp-1225` / `usp-1226` | Validation / verification of compendial procedures | Paywalled |
+| `clsi` | Clinical laboratory measurement procedures (EP series) | Paywalled |
+| `iso-17025` | Lab-developed and modified methods under accreditation | No — "to the extent necessary" |
+
+**Q2(R2) replaced Q2(R1) in November 2023 and restructured the characteristics.** Range is now
+the parent characteristic (section 3.2), containing *response* (linearity) and *validation of
+lower range limits* (DL/QL). Accuracy and precision are section 3.3 and may be evaluated in
+combination against a single criterion. Robustness is treated as a development activity and
+cross-refers to ICH Q14. Multivariate procedures are addressed explicitly (2.5 and 3.2.2.3), and
+Annex 2 adds worked examples for techniques Q2(R1) never covered — quantitative ¹H-NMR, NIR,
+quantitative LC/MS, qPCR, biological assays, and particle size. A Q2(R1)-shaped protocol — a flat
+list of linearity, range, accuracy, precision, specificity, LOD, LOQ, robustness — is out of date.
+Note also the error correction dated 30 November 2023 to Table 5 and Tables 6–11.
+
+## Scripts
+
+```bash
+cd skills/analytical-method-validation/scripts
+```
+
+| Script | Question answered |
+| --- | --- |
+| `plan_validation.py` | Which framework, which characteristics, what study layout, what protocol? |
+| `check_response.py` | Does the calibration model actually hold across the range? |
+| `check_accuracy_precision.py` | What is the recovery, and how much of the variability is between days? |
+| `check_detection_limits.py` | What are DL and QL by each allowed approach, and do they serve the reporting threshold? |
+| `check_bioanalytical_run.py` | Does this run meet ICH M10 for its modality? |
+| `compare_methods.py` | Are two procedures equivalent, at a pre-stated margin? |
+
+All take `--format table|tsv|json`. Provenance, guideline citations, and caveats go to stderr;
+data goes to stdout, so `> out.tsv` keeps them separate. Exit code is `0` for no findings, `1`
+when findings were raised, `2` for bad input — so any of them can gate a workflow.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Fix the framework and the required characteristics
+
+```bash
+python3 plan_validation.py --framework ich-q2r2 --attribute assay --technique hplc --range-use assay
+```
+
+Q2(R2) Table 1 decides what is required from the *measured attribute*, not from the technique. For
+an assay: specificity, response, accuracy, repeatability, intermediate precision. For a limit
+test: specificity and DL only. For an identity test: specificity alone. Attributes accepted include
+`assay`, `impurity` (quantitative), `impurity-limit`, and `identity`.
+
+Reportable range comes from the specification. Q2(R2) Table 2 gives worked examples — 80–120% of
+declared content for an assay, 70–130% for content uniformity, reporting threshold to 120% of the
+specification for an impurity.
+
+### 2. Generate the protocol and fill in the criteria
+
+```bash
+python3 plan_validation.py --framework ich-q2r2 --attribute impurity --protocol > protocol.md
+```
+
+Every bracketed field is a decision to make and record *before* data collection. The protocol
+skeleton deliberately refuses to pre-fill acceptance criteria for Q2(R2) work, because there is no
+defensible default.
+
+### 3. Evaluate the response
+
+```bash
+python3 check_response.py -i calibration.csv --max-back-calc-error 2
+```
+
+Input is `level,response`, one row per injection; repeated rows at the same level are replicates,
+and supplying them is what makes the linearity test possible.
+
+Real output from a curve that a coefficient of determination would wave through:
+
+```
+statistic                           value
+distinct levels                     5
+slope                               166.6000
+intercept                           2495.0000
+intercept CI includes 0             no
+coefficient of determination (r2)   0.9830
+lack-of-fit F                       469.5294
+lack-of-fit p                       1.5139e-06
+runs test p                         0.0492
+
+level     n  mean_response  mean_back_calculated  relative_error_pct
+50.0000   2  10075.0000     45.4982               -9.0036
+75.0000   2  15150.0000     75.9604               1.2805
+100.0000  2  20050.0000     105.3721              5.3721
+125.0000  2  24050.0000     129.3818              3.5054
+150.0000  2  26450.0000     143.7875              -4.1417
+```
+
+r² = 0.983 and the model is unusable: −9.0% back-calculated error at the bottom of the range,
+lack-of-fit p = 1.5 × 10⁻⁶, non-random residual signs. **r² is not evidence of linearity** — it
+rises with range and is nearly insensitive to curvature. The lack-of-fit F test against pure error
+and the residual pattern are the evidence, which is why Q2(R2) 3.2.2.1 asks for an analysis of the
+deviation of points from the line rather than a correlation coefficient alone.
+
+Add `--weight 1/x2` for a wide-range curve. The script flags heteroscedasticity when the residual
+variance in the top third of the range exceeds the bottom third by more than 10×, because an
+unweighted fit then biases exactly the low end where a reporting threshold lives.
+
+### 4. Evaluate accuracy and precision
+
+```bash
+python3 check_accuracy_precision.py -i ap.csv --accuracy-limit 2 --rsd-limit 1.0 --design-check assay
+```
+
+Input is `level,measured,group`, where `group` is the intermediate-precision factor — day, analyst,
+or instrument.
+
+```
+level  component                       sd      rsd_pct  df      ci90_low_sd  ci90_high_sd
+100    repeatability (within group)    0.0707  0.0707   3       0.0438       0.2065
+100    between-group                   1.6515  1.6515   2       n/a          n/a
+100    intermediate precision (total)  1.6530  1.6530   2.0037  0.9554       7.2821
+```
+
+Repeatability of 0.07% RSD looks superb; intermediate precision is 1.65%, twenty-three times
+larger, because the variability lives entirely between days. Reporting the within-day figure as
+the procedure's precision would understate routine performance by more than an order of magnitude.
+This is why the script fits a one-way random-effects model rather than pooling.
+
+Two traps the script handles for you:
+
+- **Precision is estimated within each level, never pooled across levels.** Pooling 80/100/120%
+  results into one standard deviation turns the range itself into apparent imprecision. The script
+  reports per level, plus a level-independent view as percent of nominal.
+- **`--require-ci-within-limit`** enforces that the whole confidence interval sits inside the
+  limit, not just the mean. Q2(R2) 3.3.1.4 asks for the interval to be *compatible with* the
+  criterion; a mean that scrapes inside on six replicates has not demonstrated much.
+
+### 5. Establish DL and QL, and confirm them
+
+```bash
+python3 check_detection_limits.py --calibration lowcal.csv --blanks blanks.csv \
+    --confirm-ql 0.05 --confirm-data ql_check.csv --reporting-threshold 0.05
+```
+
+```
+approach                                          sigma   slope      DL      QL
+sd-and-slope (sigma = residual SD of regression)  7.2816  5033.3490  0.0048  0.0145
+sd-and-slope (sigma = SD of y-intercept)          4.3303  5033.3490  0.0028  0.0086
+sd-and-slope (sigma = SD of 8 blanks)             3.7702  5033.3490  0.0025  0.0075
+```
+
+The same data give QL estimates spanning 1.9×, purely from the choice of σ. Q2(R2) 3.2.3.5
+therefore requires the limit **and the approach used to determine it** to be reported, and an
+estimated limit to be confirmed with samples at or near it. For an impurity procedure the QL must
+be at or below the reporting threshold. Reaching for `3.3σ/slope` reflexively, reporting one number
+with no named approach, and never confirming it are three separate findings.
+
+### 6. Bioanalytical runs under ICH M10
+
+```bash
+python3 check_bioanalytical_run.py --modality chromatographic --run run1.csv
+python3 check_bioanalytical_run.py --modality lba --isr isr.csv
+python3 check_bioanalytical_run.py --modality lba --criteria
+```
+
+`--modality` is mandatory and has no default, because the criteria genuinely differ:
+
+| | Chromatographic | Ligand binding assay |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Calibration tolerance | ±15%, ±20% at LLOQ | ±20%, ±25% at LLOQ and ULOQ |
+| Accuracy / precision | ±15% / ≤15% CV (±20% / ≤20% at LLOQ) | ±20% / ≤20% CV (±25% / ≤25% at LLOQ and ULOQ) |
+| A&P design | 4 QC levels, 5 replicates/run, ≥3 runs over ≥2 days | 5 QC levels, 3 replicates/run, ≥6 runs over ≥2 days |
+| Total error | no such criterion | ≤30%, ≤40% at LLOQ and ULOQ |
+| ISR agreement | ±20% for ≥2/3 of repeats | ±30% for ≥2/3 of repeats |
+
+Applying the ±15% chromatographic numbers to a ligand binding assay, or importing the LBA total-error
+criterion into a chromatographic method, are both common and both wrong.
+
+The run check enforces the per-level rule that gets missed: at least 2/3 of *all* QCs **and** at
+least 50% at *each* level. A run can pass the overall fraction while a single level fails
+completely.
+
+```
+finding: QC level high: 0/2 within tolerance (0%); M10 requires at least 50% at each level
+```
+
+### 7. Transfer and method comparison
+
+```bash
+python3 compare_methods.py -i paired.csv --margin 2 --relative --slope-tolerance 0.05
+```
+
+```
+mean difference (%)                       1.4646
+TOST margin                               2.0000
+TOST p-value                              1.0528e-13
+90% CI (TOST)                             1.44127 to 1.48797
+equivalent at stated margin               yes
+--- for contrast only ---
+paired t-test p (NOT equivalence)         0.0000
+OLS slope (biased here)                   1.0396
+Deming slope                              1.0398
+Passing-Bablok slope                      1.0351
+```
+
+Two errors this replaces:
+
+- **"p > 0.05, no significant difference, therefore the methods are equivalent."** Failing to
+  detect a difference is not evidence of equivalence, and on a small transfer dataset that outcome
+  is close to guaranteed. TOST tests the hypothesis that matters — that the true difference lies
+  inside a pre-stated margin. Here the t test says the difference is highly significant *and* TOST
+  says the methods are equivalent at ±2%; both are true, and only one answers the question.
+- **Ordinary least squares for method comparison.** OLS assumes the reference values carry no
+  error, which is false when comparing two procedures, and biases the slope toward zero. Deming
+  (with a stated error-variance ratio) and Passing–Bablok (non-parametric, outlier-resistant) are
+  the appropriate regressions and are reported side by side with OLS for contrast.
+
+The script also flags proportional bias — when the difference trends with concentration, a single
+mean bias and its limits of agreement are misleading regardless of how tight they look.
+
+## What this skill exists to prevent
+
+1. Validating against ICH Q2(R1)'s structure three years after Q2(R2) replaced it.
+2. Acceptance criteria written after the data were seen.
+3. r² presented as evidence of linearity.
+4. Repeatability reported as the procedure's precision, with the between-day component invisible.
+5. One DL/QL number with no named approach and no confirmation.
+6. Chromatographic M10 criteria applied to a ligand binding assay, or the reverse.
+7. A t test's non-significance presented as equivalence at a method transfer.
+
+## References
+
+- `references/framework-selection.md` — which framework governs, and the questions that decide it
+- `references/ich-q2r2.md` — structure, Table 1 and Table 2, per-characteristic recommended data
+- `references/ich-m10-bioanalytical.md` — the full chromatographic and LBA criteria side by side
+- `references/compendial-and-clsi.md` — USP, CLSI and ISO designations, scope, and how to cite them
+- `references/statistics.md` — the statistical methods, why each one, and the common errors
+- `references/source-ledger.md` — provenance and research dates for every claim in this skill
+
+## Assets
+
+- `assets/validation-protocol-template.md` — protocol structure with criteria stated up front
+- `assets/validation-report-template.md` — report structure with raw-data traceability

package/skills/analytical-method-validation/assets/validation-protocol-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Analytical Procedure Validation Protocol
+
+> Every bracketed field is a decision to make and record **before** data collection.
+> `plan_validation.py --protocol` generates a framework-specific version of this document with the
+> required characteristics already listed.
+
+| Field | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| Protocol number / version | [ ] |
+| Analytical procedure identifier and version | [ ] |
+| Product / analyte / matrix | [ ] |
+| Measured quality attribute | [ ] assay / impurity (quantitative) / impurity (limit) / identity / other |
+| Governing framework and section | [ ] |
+| Regional expectation confirmed with | [ ] |
+| Related development report (ICH Q14) | [ ] |
+| Author / date | [ ] |
+| Technical reviewer / date | [ ] |
+| Quality unit approval / date | [ ] |
+
+## 1. Intended purpose and analytical target profile
+
+- Measurand and reporting unit: [ ]
+- Decision the result supports: [ ] release / stability / in-process / clinical / other
+- Specification or reporting limits served: [ ]
+- Required reportable range, derived from the specification: [ ]
+- Performance characteristics and criteria (the ATP): [ ]
+
+## 2. Pre-stated acceptance criteria
+
+State a numeric criterion and its justification for every characteristic to be validated. A
+criterion with no justification traceable to the specification, the ATP, or development data is not
+defensible.
+
+| Characteristic | Criterion | Justification | Framework reference |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Specificity / selectivity | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Response (calibration model) | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Lower range limit (DL / QL) | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Accuracy | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Repeatability | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Intermediate precision | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Combined accuracy and precision, if used | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+- Interval to be reported alongside accuracy and precision: [ ] confidence level [ ]
+- Does the criterion apply to the point estimate or to the whole interval? [ ]
+
+## 3. Study design
+
+| Characteristic | Levels | Replicates | Runs / days / analysts / instruments |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Response | [ ] (minimum 5 for ICH Q2(R2)) | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Accuracy | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Repeatability | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Intermediate precision | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Lower range limit | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+- Replicate count matches the routine reportable result: [ ] yes / [ ] justified deviation: [ ]
+- Calibration model and weighting, fixed in advance: [ ] unweighted / 1/x / 1/x² / non-linear / multivariate
+- Randomisation and run order: [ ]
+- Prior knowledge or development data used in place of a test, with justification: [ ]
+
+## 4. Materials
+
+| Item | Identity / grade | Lot | Assigned value and uncertainty | Expiry |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Reference material | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Impurity standards | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Blank / placebo matrix | [ ] | [ ] | — | [ ] |
+
+## 5. Sample and solution handling
+
+- Preparation procedure and dilution scheme: [ ]
+- Solution stability window to be demonstrated: [ ]
+- Storage conditions: [ ]
+
+## 6. Specificity and stability-indicating properties
+
+- Interferences to be challenged: [ ]
+- Forced degradation conditions, if a stability-indicating claim is made: [ ]
+- Orthogonal procedure, if used, and its accuracy: [ ]
+
+## 7. Robustness (normally development, ICH Q14)
+
+| Parameter | Nominal | Range varied | Effect assessed on |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+## 8. Statistical treatment
+
+- Software, version, and how calculations are verified: [ ]
+- Handling of outliers, stated in advance: [ ]
+- Scripts to be used and their output retained as records: [ ]
+
+## 9. Deviations and data integrity
+
+- Deviation identification, assessment and approval route: [ ]
+- All results will be reported, including out-of-criteria values: [ ] confirmed
+- Raw data location, audit trail, and review: [ ]
+
+## 10. Approvals
+
+| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Author | | | |
+| Technical reviewer | | | |
+| Quality unit | | | |

package/skills/analytical-method-validation/assets/validation-report-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+# Analytical Procedure Validation Report
+
+> Reports the outcome against criteria stated in the approved protocol. If a criterion here differs
+> from the protocol, that is a deviation to be documented, not an edit to be made.
+
+| Field | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| Report number / version | [ ] |
+| Protocol number / version executed | [ ] |
+| Analytical procedure identifier and version | [ ] |
+| Governing framework | [ ] |
+| Execution dates | [ ] |
+| Analysts and instruments | [ ] |
+| Author / date | [ ] |
+| Technical reviewer / date | [ ] |
+| Quality unit approval / date | [ ] |
+
+## 1. Summary of outcome
+
+| Characteristic | Criterion (from protocol) | Result | Interval reported | Met |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Specificity / selectivity | [ ] | [ ] | — | [ ] |
+| Response | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Lower range limit (DL / QL) | [ ] | [ ] | — | [ ] |
+| Accuracy | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Repeatability | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Intermediate precision | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+- Validated reportable range: [ ]
+- Statement of fitness for the intended purpose, and who is making it: [ ]
+
+## 2. Response
+
+- Levels and replicates actually run: [ ]
+- Calibration model and weighting: [ ]
+- Slope, intercept, and their confidence intervals: [ ]
+- Coefficient of determination: [ ]
+- **Analysis of deviation from the regression line** (residual plot, lack-of-fit test, back-calculated
+  relative error per level): [ ]
+
+## 3. Accuracy
+
+| Level | n | Mean recovery (%) | Bias (%) | Confidence interval | Met |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+- Approach used: [ ] reference material / spiking / orthogonal comparison
+- For impurities, basis of determination: [ ] w/w / area %
+
+## 4. Precision
+
+| Level | Component | SD | %RSD | df | Interval | Met |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| [ ] | repeatability | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+| [ ] | between-group | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | — | — |
+| [ ] | intermediate precision | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+- Intermediate precision factors varied: [ ] days / analysts / instruments / environment
+- Reproducibility, if performed: [ ]
+
+## 5. Lower range limits
+
+- DL, and **the approach used to determine it**: [ ]
+- QL, and **the approach used to determine it**: [ ]
+- Confirmation of the estimated limit with samples at or near it: [ ]
+- For impurity procedures, QL relative to the reporting threshold: [ ]
+
+## 6. Specificity and stability-indicating properties
+
+- Interference results: [ ]
+- Forced degradation results and peak purity / mass balance: [ ]
+- Relative response factors, and any correction factor applied: [ ]
+
+## 7. Robustness
+
+| Parameter | Range varied | Effect on the reportable result | Conclusion |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+- Solution stability demonstrated over: [ ]
+
+## 8. Deviations
+
+| # | Description | Assessment of impact | Disposition | Approved by |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+- Out-of-criteria individual results, and whether they were included in the reported statistics: [ ]
+
+## 9. Raw data traceability
+
+Every reported number must be traceable to a retained record. A report whose numbers cannot be
+reproduced from the raw data is the finding that costs the most to remediate.
+
+| Reported item | Raw data location | Instrument / system | Acquisition date | Reviewed by |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+- Software and version used for calculations: [ ]
+- Calculation verification method: [ ]
+- Script outputs retained as records: [ ]
+
+## 10. Conclusion and lifecycle
+
+- Conclusion against the ATP / intended purpose: [ ]
+- Conditions or limitations on use: [ ]
+- Ongoing performance monitoring planned: [ ]
+- Revalidation triggers identified: [ ]
+
+## 11. Approvals
+
+| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Author | | | |
+| Technical reviewer | | | |
+| Quality unit | | | |

package/skills/analytical-method-validation/references/compendial-and-clsi.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# Compendial, CLSI, and ISO Sources (No Standard Text)
+
+Research basis: **2026-07-27**. This reference identifies documents, their scope, and where to obtain
+them. **It does not reproduce their requirements, thresholds, or study designs**, because they are
+copyrighted and paywalled.
+
+## Copyright boundary
+
+USP–NF general chapters, CLSI documents, and ISO/IEC standards are copyrighted works sold by their
+publishers. Do not ask an agent to retrieve, transcribe, summarise clause-by-clause, reconstruct, or
+store their text. Vendor application notes and training decks that quote them are equally
+constrained, and a paraphrase that carries the same numbers is still a reproduction of the
+substantive content.
+
+The practical consequence: **when a numeric criterion or a study design lives in one of these
+documents, read it from the authorised copy.** An agent asked for "the USP <621> tailing factor
+limit" or "the CLSI EP15 number of days" will produce a plausible number. Plausible is not the same
+as correct, and the difference is discovered at audit.
+
+Record publisher, title, designation, edition, amendments, authorised location, access date, and
+review date in the laboratory's controlled source register.
+
+## USP–NF general chapters
+
+| Chapter | Title | Scope |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `<1220>` | Analytical Procedure Life Cycle | Three-stage lifecycle: procedure design (Stage 1), performance qualification (Stage 2), ongoing performance verification (Stage 3), organised around an analytical target profile. Official 1 May 2022 (incorporated into USP–NF 2022 Issue 1 on 1 Nov 2021). Integrates the concepts previously spread across `<1224>`, `<1225>`, and `<1226>`. |
+| `<1225>` | Validation of Compendial Procedures | Validation of non-compendial procedures, and of compendial procedures used outside their stated scope. Stage 2 activity under `<1220>`. |
+| `<1226>` | Verification of Compendial Procedures | Assessment of selected performance characteristics showing a compendial procedure works under actual conditions of use. **Verification is not revalidation** and does not repeat the full validation. |
+| `<1224>` | Transfer of Analytical Procedures | Transfer between laboratories. |
+| `<1010>` | Analytical Data — Interpretation and Treatment | Statistical treatment of analytical data. |
+| `<621>` | Chromatography | System suitability and chromatographic operating parameters, including the extent to which a compendial procedure may be adjusted without triggering revalidation. |
+| `<711>` / `<1092>` | Dissolution / The Dissolution Procedure | Dissolution testing and development/validation of the procedure. |
+
+Obtain from the USP–NF (<https://www.uspnf.com/>). Regional pharmacopoeias — Ph. Eur., JP, ChP —
+carry their own general chapters; check which pharmacopoeia the specification cites, because
+adjustment allowances and system suitability requirements differ between them.
+
+**The `<1226>` decision.** Verification applies when using a compendial procedure as written and
+within its scope. Two situations push you back to `<1225>` validation: using the procedure outside
+its stated scope (a different matrix, a different dosage form, a concentration range it does not
+cover), or modifying it beyond the adjustments the relevant chapter permits. Getting this wrong in
+either direction is expensive — unnecessary full validation, or an unsupported claim of verification.
+
+## CLSI EP series
+
+Designations and titles below were taken from clsi.org listings and secondary sources on the
+research date. **Editions change; confirm the current edition on <https://clsi.org/> before designing
+a study.** Marked `[confirm]` where the edition was not read from the publisher directly.
+
+| Designation | Subject | Note |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| EP05 | Evaluation of precision of quantitative measurement procedures | Establishment of precision; the multi-day/multi-run designs. `[confirm edition]` |
+| EP06 | Evaluation of linearity of quantitative measurement procedures | 2nd edition reported. `[confirm edition]` |
+| EP07 | Interference testing in clinical chemistry | Screening, quantifying and confirming interferents; verifying manufacturer interference claims. 3rd edition reported. `[confirm edition]` |
+| EP09 | Measurement procedure comparison and bias estimation using patient samples | The method-comparison document. 3rd edition reported. `[confirm edition]` |
+| EP15 | User verification of precision and estimation of bias | The short study a laboratory runs to verify a manufacturer's claims. 3rd edition reported. `[confirm edition]` |
+| EP17 | Evaluation of detection capability | Limit of blank, limit of detection, limit of quantitation; verification of manufacturer claims. `[confirm edition]` |
+| EP25 | Evaluation of stability of in vitro diagnostic reagents | `[confirm edition]` |
+| EP28 | Defining, establishing, and verifying reference intervals | Formerly designated C28. An implementation guide (EP28IG) also exists. `[confirm edition]` |
+
+**Vocabulary.** CLSI distinguishes *limit of blank*, *limit of detection*, and *limit of quantitation*
+as three separate quantities with separate protocols. This is not the same taxonomy as ICH Q2(R2)'s
+detection limit and quantitation limit, and the two should not be translated into each other
+casually — the underlying definitions and the experiments differ.
+
+**Verification versus establishment.** For an FDA-cleared or CE-marked assay used as intended, a
+laboratory *verifies* the manufacturer's performance claims — a bounded study. For a
+laboratory-developed test, or an assay used off-label, the laboratory *establishes* performance,
+which is a much larger exercise. Under CLIA the distinction has direct regulatory consequences and
+also depends on test complexity. Determine which applies before designing anything.
+
+## ISO standards
+
+| Standard | Relevance |
+| --- | --- |
+| ISO/IEC 17025:2017 | Clause 7.2 selection, verification and validation of methods; clause 7.6 measurement uncertainty. Validation "to the extent necessary" for the intended application — no characteristic list, no numeric criteria. |
+| ISO 15189 | Medical laboratories: quality and competence. The clinical-laboratory counterpart to 17025. |
+| ISO 21748 / ISO 5725 series | Using repeatability, reproducibility and trueness estimates in measurement uncertainty; accuracy of measurement methods. |
+
+Obtain from ISO (<https://www.iso.org/>) or a national member body. A laboratory is **accredited** to
+ISO/IEC 17025 by an accreditation body — it is not "17025 certified", and writing "certified" is a
+substantive error assessors notice.
+
+For accreditation readiness, the quality manual, and the surrounding management system, use this
+repository's `iso-standards-readiness` skill. This skill stays at the level of the individual
+procedure.
+
+## Environmental, food, and forensic method systems
+
+Where a prescribed method system governs — a published EPA method, an AOAC Official Method, a
+standard method for water or food analysis — the validation and quality-control requirements are
+written into the method or the programme, and they take precedence. Do not substitute a
+pharmaceutical framework. Common differences: matrix spike and duplicate requirements per batch,
+prescribed calibration-verification frequencies, method detection limit procedures that differ from
+both ICH and CLSI, and mandatory participation in proficiency testing schemes.