FDA Consultant Specialist

FDA regulatory consulting for medical device manufacturers covering submission pathways, Quality System Regulation (QSR), HIPAA compliance, and device cybersecurity requirements.

Table of Contents

• FDA Pathway Selection
• 510(k) Submission Process
• QSR Compliance
• HIPAA for Medical Devices
• Device Cybersecurity
• Resources

---

FDA Pathway Selection

Determine the appropriate FDA regulatory pathway based on device classification and predicate availability.

Decision Framework

Predicate device exists?
├── YES → Substantially equivalent?
│   ├── YES → 510(k) Pathway
│   │   ├── No design changes → Abbreviated 510(k)
│   │   ├── Manufacturing only → Special 510(k)
│   │   └── Design/performance → Traditional 510(k)
│   └── NO → PMA or De Novo
└── NO → Novel device?
    ├── Low-to-moderate risk → De Novo
    └── High risk (Class III) → PMA

Pathway Comparison

Pathway	When to Use	Timeline	Cost
510(k) Traditional	Predicate exists, design changes	90 days	$21,760
510(k) Special	Manufacturing changes only	30 days	$21,760
510(k) Abbreviated	Guidance/standard conformance	30 days	$21,760
De Novo	Novel, low-moderate risk	150 days	$134,676
PMA	Class III, no predicate	180+ days	$425,000+

Pre-Submission Strategy

1. Identify product code and classification
2. Search 510(k) database for predicates
3. Assess substantial equivalence feasibility
4. Prepare Q-Sub questions for FDA
5. Schedule Pre-Sub meeting if needed

Reference: See fda_submission_guide.md for pathway decision matrices and submission requirements.

---

510(k) Submission Process

Workflow

Phase 1: Planning
├── Step 1: Identify predicate device(s)
├── Step 2: Compare intended use and technology
├── Step 3: Determine testing requirements
└── Checkpoint: SE argument feasible?

Phase 2: Preparation
├── Step 4: Complete performance testing
├── Step 5: Prepare device description
├── Step 6: Document SE comparison
├── Step 7: Finalize labeling
└── Checkpoint: All required sections complete?

Phase 3: Submission
├── Step 8: Assemble submission package
├── Step 9: Submit via eSTAR
├── Step 10: Track acknowledgment
└── Checkpoint: Submission accepted?

Phase 4: Review
├── Step 11: Monitor review status
├── Step 12: Respond to AI requests
├── Step 13: Receive decision
└── Verification: SE letter received?

Required Sections (21 CFR 807.87)

Section	Content
Cover Letter	Submission type, device ID, contact info
Form 3514	CDRH premarket review cover sheet
Device Description	Physical description, principles of operation
Indications for Use	Form 3881, patient population, use environment
SE Comparison	Side-by-side comparison with predicate
Performance Testing	Bench, biocompatibility, electrical safety
Software Documentation	Level of concern, hazard analysis (IEC 62304)
Labeling	IFU, package labels, warnings
510(k) Summary	Public summary of submission

Common RTA Issues

Issue	Prevention
Missing user fee	Verify payment before submission
Incomplete Form 3514	Review all fields, ensure signature
No predicate identified	Confirm K-number in FDA database
Inadequate SE comparison	Address all technological characteristics

---

QSR Compliance

Quality System Regulation (21 CFR Part 820) requirements for medical device manufacturers.

Key Subsystems

Section	Title	Focus
820.20	Management Responsibility	Quality policy, org structure, management review
820.30	Design Controls	Input, output, review, verification, validation
820.40	Document Controls	Approval, distribution, change control
820.50	Purchasing Controls	Supplier qualification, purchasing data
820.70	Production Controls	Process validation, environmental controls
820.100	CAPA	Root cause analysis, corrective actions
820.181	Device Master Record	Specifications, procedures, acceptance criteria

Design Controls Workflow (820.30)

Step 1: Design Input
└── Capture user needs, intended use, regulatory requirements
    Verification: Inputs reviewed and approved?

Step 2: Design Output
└── Create specifications, drawings, software architecture
    Verification: Outputs traceable to inputs?

Step 3: Design Review
└── Conduct reviews at each phase milestone
    Verification: Review records with signatures?

Step 4: Design Verification
└── Perform testing against specifications
    Verification: All tests pass acceptance criteria?

Step 5: Design Validation
└── Confirm device meets user needs in actual use conditions
    Verification: Validation report approved?

Step 6: Design Transfer
└── Release to production with DMR complete
    Verification: Transfer checklist complete?

CAPA Process (820.100)

1. Identify: Document nonconformity or potential problem
2. Investigate: Perform root cause analysis (5 Whys, Fishbone)
3. Plan: Define corrective/preventive actions
4. Implement: Execute actions, update documentation
5. Verify: Confirm implementation complete
6. Effectiveness: Monitor for recurrence (30-90 days)
7. Close: Management approval and closure

Reference: See qsr_compliance_requirements.md for detailed QSR implementation guidance.

---

HIPAA for Medical Devices

HIPAA requirements for devices that create, store, transmit, or access Protected Health Information (PHI).

Applicability

Device Type	HIPAA Applies
Standalone diagnostic (no data transmission)	No
Connected device transmitting patient data	Yes
Device with EHR integration	Yes
SaMD storing patient information	Yes
Wellness app (no diagnosis)	Only if stores PHI

Required Safeguards

Administrative (§164.308)
├── Security officer designation
├── Risk analysis and management
├── Workforce training
├── Incident response procedures
└── Business associate agreements

Physical (§164.310)
├── Facility access controls
├── Workstation security
└── Device disposal procedures

Technical (§164.312)
├── Access control (unique IDs, auto-logoff)
├── Audit controls (logging)
├── Integrity controls (checksums, hashes)
├── Authentication (MFA recommended)
└── Transmission security (TLS 1.2+)

Risk Assessment Steps

1. Inventory all systems handling ePHI
2. Document data flows (collection, storage, transmission)
3. Identify threats and vulnerabilities
4. Assess likelihood and impact
5. Determine risk levels
6. Implement controls
7. Document residual risk

Reference: See hipaa_compliance_framework.md for implementation checklists and BAA templates.

---

Device Cybersecurity

FDA cybersecurity requirements for connected medical devices.

Premarket Requirements

Element	Description
Threat Model	STRIDE analysis, attack trees, trust boundaries
Security Controls	Authentication, encryption, access control
SBOM	Software Bill of Materials (CycloneDX or SPDX)
Security Testing	Penetration testing, vulnerability scanning
Vulnerability Plan	Disclosure process, patch management

Device Tier Classification

Tier 1 (Higher Risk):

• Connects to network/internet
• Cybersecurity incident could cause patient harm

Tier 2 (Standard Risk):

• All other connected devices

Postmarket Obligations

1. Monitor NVD and ICS-CERT for vulnerabilities
2. Assess applicability to device components
3. Develop and test patches
4. Communicate with customers
5. Report to FDA per guidance

Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure

Researcher Report
    ↓
Acknowledgment (48 hours)
    ↓
Initial Assessment (5 days)
    ↓
Fix Development
    ↓
Coordinated Public Disclosure

Reference: See device_cybersecurity_guidance.md for SBOM format examples and threat modeling templates.

---

Resources

scripts/

Script	Purpose
fda_submission_tracker.py	Track 510(k)/PMA/De Novo submission milestones and timelines
qsr_compliance_checker.py	Assess 21 CFR 820 compliance against project documentation
hipaa_risk_assessment.py	Evaluate HIPAA safeguards in medical device software

references/

File	Content
fda_submission_guide.md	510(k), De Novo, PMA submission requirements and checklists
qsr_compliance_requirements.md	21 CFR 820 implementation guide with templates
hipaa_compliance_framework.md	HIPAA Security Rule safeguards and BAA requirements
device_cybersecurity_guidance.md	FDA cybersecurity requirements, SBOM, threat modeling
fda_capa_requirements.md	CAPA process, root cause analysis, effectiveness verification

Usage Examples

# Track FDA submission status
python scripts/fda_submission_tracker.py /path/to/project --type 510k

# Assess QSR compliance
python scripts/qsr_compliance_checker.py /path/to/project --section 820.30

# Run HIPAA risk assessment
python scripts/hipaa_risk_assessment.py /path/to/project --category technical

---

FDA QMSR — Quality Management System Regulation

Transition from QSR (21 CFR 820) to QMSR

The FDA finalized the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) in January 2024, replacing the legacy Quality System Regulation (QSR) with ISO 13485:2016 alignment. The rule became effective February 2, 2026.

Aspect	Legacy QSR (21 CFR 820)	QMSR (Effective Feb 2026)
Framework	FDA-specific prescriptive requirements	Incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference
Design controls	820.30 (FDA-specific)	ISO 13485 Clause 7.3
CAPA	820.100	ISO 13485 Clause 8.5
Document control	820.40	ISO 13485 Clause 4.2
Management responsibility	820.20	ISO 13485 Clause 5
Purchasing controls	820.50	ISO 13485 Clause 7.4

Key differences under QMSR:

• ISO 13485:2016 is incorporated by reference as the primary QMS standard
• FDA retains certain device-specific requirements not covered by ISO 13485 (e.g., complaint handling per 21 CFR 820.198)
• Organizations already ISO 13485 certified have a significant head start
• No separate FDA registration for QMS — single system serves both ISO and FDA

QMSR Transition Checklist

• Gap analysis: ISO 13485:2016 vs. current QSR compliance
• Update Quality Manual to reference ISO 13485 clause structure
• Map existing SOPs to ISO 13485 clauses
• Address FDA-specific retained requirements (complaint handling, MDR reporting)
• Train staff on ISO 13485 terminology and structure
• Update supplier agreements to reference new regulatory framework
• Conduct internal audit against QMSR requirements
• Update design history files to ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 format

---

AI/ML-Based Software as Medical Device (SaMD)

FDA AI/ML SaMD Framework

Category	Description	FDA Pathway
Locked algorithm	Algorithm does not change after deployment	Standard 510(k)/De Novo/PMA
Adaptive algorithm (PCCP)	Algorithm learns and changes with use	Predetermined Change Control Plan
Continuously learning	Real-time adaptation from new data	Case-by-case; PCCP required

AI/ML SaMD Submission Requirements

AI/ML SaMD Submission Package
├── Algorithm description and architecture
├── Training data characterization
│   ├── Data sources and collection methods
│   ├── Demographics and representativeness
│   ├── Data quality and labeling methodology
│   └── Training/validation/test split rationale
├── Performance evaluation
│   ├── Pre-specified performance goals
│   ├── Standalone performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, AUC)
│   ├── Subgroup analysis (age, sex, race, site)
│   └── Real-world performance data (if available)
├── Reference standard justification
├── Predetermined Change Control Plan (if adaptive)
├── Human factors / user interface
├── Cybersecurity documentation
└── Software documentation per IEC 62304

Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP) Principles

1. Multi-disciplinary expertise throughout product lifecycle
2. Good software engineering and security practices
3. Representative training and test datasets
4. Independent test datasets separate from training
5. Reference datasets based on best available methods
6. Model design tailored to available data and intended use
7. Focus on performance of human-AI team
8. Clinical study testing demonstrates real-world performance
9. Users provided clear, essential information
10. Deployed models monitored for performance with retraining managed

---

Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) for AI/ML Devices

PCCP Structure

Section	Content	Evidence
Description of modifications	Types of changes the algorithm will make	Change specification document
Modification protocol	How changes will be developed and tested	Validation protocol
Impact assessment	How each change type affects safety and effectiveness	Risk analysis per change type
Performance monitoring	Ongoing real-world performance tracking	Monitoring plan with metrics
Update verification	How each update will be verified before deployment	Verification and validation plan
Transparency	How users will be notified of changes	Communication plan

PCCP Change Categories

Category	Example	Verification Level
Performance improvement	Retrained model with additional data	Automated testing + clinical validation
Input adaptation	New imaging modality support	Full V&V cycle
Output modification	New risk categories or confidence levels	Clinical study
Architecture change	Model architecture update	New submission (510(k)/PMA supplement)

---

Enhanced Cybersecurity Requirements (PATCH Act)

The PATCH Act (effective March 2023, codified in FD&C Act §524B) requires:

Requirement	Details	Evidence
Cybersecurity plan	Submit plan to monitor, identify, and address vulnerabilities	Premarket submission section
SBOM	Software Bill of Materials including commercial, open-source, off-the-shelf components	CycloneDX or SPDX format
Patch/update capability	Design device to be patchable throughout lifecycle	Architecture documentation
Coordinated vulnerability disclosure	Establish and maintain CVD process	Published security policy
Postmarket updates	Provide patches and updates in a reasonably justified cycle	Patch management plan

Cybersecurity Documentation for Premarket Submissions

Cybersecurity Premarket Package
├── Security risk assessment
│   ├── Threat model (STRIDE or equivalent)
│   ├── Security risk analysis per AAMI TIR57
│   └── Attack surface analysis
├── Security architecture
│   ├── Security controls implementation
│   ├── Cryptographic architecture
│   └── Network architecture and trust boundaries
├── SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)
│   ├── All software components (commercial, open-source, custom)
│   ├── Version information
│   └── Known vulnerability status
├── Security testing
│   ├── Static analysis (SAST)
│   ├── Dynamic analysis (DAST)
│   ├── Penetration testing report
│   ├── Fuzz testing results
│   └── Vulnerability scanning results
├── Lifecycle security plan
│   ├── Patch management process
│   ├── End-of-life/end-of-support plan
│   └── Customer communication plan
└── Coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy

---

Cross-Reference: EU AI Act for AI Medical Devices

AI-enabled medical devices must comply with both FDA requirements and EU AI Act when marketed in both jurisdictions:

Aspect	FDA Approach	EU AI Act Approach	Harmonization Strategy
Risk classification	SaMD risk framework (IMDRF)	Annex III high-risk (medical devices)	Map to both frameworks; use higher standard
Transparency	Labeling requirements	Art. 13 transparency obligations	Unified transparency documentation
Data governance	GMLP principles	Art. 10 data and data governance	Comprehensive data quality program
Human oversight	Human factors per IEC 62366	Art. 14 human oversight	Integrated human factors + oversight design
Post-market	Real-world performance monitoring	Art. 72 post-market monitoring	Single monitoring system serving both
Technical documentation	FDA premarket submission	Annex IV technical documentation	Unified technical file

See also: ../mdr-745-specialist/SKILL.md for EU MDR classification of AI/ML medical devices and ../risk-management-specialist/SKILL.md for ISO 14971 risk management for AI devices.

---

Updated 510(k) Electronic Submission Requirements (eSTAR)

eSTAR Mandate

As of October 1, 2023, FDA requires all 510(k) submissions to use the eSTAR template format. Paper submissions are no longer accepted.

eSTAR Requirement	Details
Template	FDA eSTAR template (fillable PDF)
Format	Structured data fields + attachments
Attachments	PDF/A format, bookmarked, OCR-searchable
File naming	FDA naming convention required
Submission portal	CDRH Customer Collaboration Portal or FDA ESG
Maximum file size	100MB per individual file; no total limit

eSTAR Section Mapping

eSTAR Section	Content	Common Deficiencies
Administrative	Cover letter, user fee, truthful/accurate statement	Missing signatures, incorrect fee
Device Description	Complete device description with images/diagrams	Insufficient detail, missing accessories
Substantial Equivalence	Predicate comparison table	Incomplete comparison criteria
Performance Testing	All test reports with summaries	Missing acceptance criteria, incomplete protocols
Software	Level of concern, hazard analysis, architecture	Outdated IEC 62304 compliance
Biocompatibility	ISO 10993 evaluation or testing	Missing risk assessment, incomplete contact analysis
Sterility	Sterilization validation summary	Missing reprocessing instructions (reusable devices)
Labeling	Device labels, IFU, patient materials	Non-compliant with 21 CFR 801
EMC/Electrical Safety	IEC 60601-1 compliance	Missing particular standards
Clinical	Clinical data summary (if applicable)	Insufficient clinical evidence for new indications

---

Cross-Framework: FDA ↔ MDR ↔ ISO 13485 Mapping

Process Area	FDA (QMSR/QSR)	EU MDR 2017/745	ISO 13485:2016
Quality management system	21 CFR 820 / QMSR	Annex IX, Annex XI	Clause 4
Management responsibility	820.20 / ISO 13485 Cl. 5	Annex IX §2.2	Clause 5
Design controls	820.30 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.3	Annex II §6.1, GSPR	Clause 7.3
Document control	820.40 / ISO 13485 Cl. 4.2	Annex IX §2.3	Clause 4.2
Purchasing	820.50 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.4	Annex IX §2.4	Clause 7.4
Production	820.70 / ISO 13485 Cl. 7.5	Annex IX §2.5	Clause 7.5
CAPA	820.100 / ISO 13485 Cl. 8.5	Art. 83 (PMS), Art. 89 (FSCA)	Clause 8.5
Risk management	820.30(g) / ISO 14971	Annex I (GSPR), ISO 14971	Clause 7.1
Clinical evidence	820.30(f) / clinical data	Annex XIV (clinical evaluation)	N/A (separate)
Post-market	820.198 / MDR/MedWatch	Art. 83-86 (PMS), Art. 87-92 (vigilance)	Clause 8.2.1-8.2.3
Labeling	21 CFR 801	Art. 10-13, Annex I Ch. III	N/A (separate)
UDI	21 CFR 830 (FDA UDI)	Art. 27-29 (UDI-DI/PI)	N/A (separate)
Cybersecurity	§524B FD&C (PATCH Act)	MDCG 2019-16	N/A (separate)
AI/ML devices	AI/ML SaMD framework + PCCP	EU AI Act + MDR	ISO 13485 + ISO 42001

Cross-references: See ../quality-manager-qms-iso13485/SKILL.md for ISO 13485 implementation aligned with QMSR, and ../mdr-745-specialist/SKILL.md for EU MDR technical documentation requirements.

---

FDA Regulatory Updates & Cross-Framework Integration

FDA QMSR — Quality Management System Regulation

The FDA is aligning 21 CFR Part 820 with ISO 13485:2016 through the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR), effective February 2, 2026:

• Key Change: QSR (21 CFR 820) replaced by ISO 13485 as the recognized quality system standard
• Impact: Manufacturers must comply with ISO 13485:2016 instead of QSR-specific requirements
• Design Controls: ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 replaces 820.30
• CAPA: ISO 13485 Clause 8.5 replaces 820.90/820.100
• Transition: FDA accepting both QSR and QMSR during transition period

AI/ML-Based Software as Medical Device (SaMD)

• Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP): Required for AI/ML devices that learn and adapt
• Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP): FDA's 10 guiding principles for AI/ML in medical devices
• Transparency: Clear labeling of AI/ML-based functionality and limitations
• Real-World Performance: Post-market monitoring of AI model performance drift
• Cross-reference: See eu-ai-act-specialist for EU AI Act requirements for AI medical devices

Enhanced Cybersecurity Requirements (PATCH Act)

• Premarket Submissions: Cybersecurity documentation required for all connected devices
• Software Bill of Materials (SBOM): Mandatory for all premarket submissions
• Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure: Required policy for all connected device manufacturers
• Postmarket Patches: Cybersecurity patches exempt from 510(k) requirements
• Cross-reference: See infrastructure-compliance-auditor for technical cybersecurity checks

Cross-Framework Mapping (FDA ↔ MDR ↔ ISO 13485)

Area	FDA (QSR/QMSR)	EU MDR 2017/745	ISO 13485:2016
Design Controls	820.30 / QMSR	Annex II	Clause 7.3
Risk Management	820.30(g)	Annex I GSPR	ISO 14971
Clinical Evidence	820.30(f)	Annex XIV	Clause 7.3.7
CAPA	820.90/100	Art. 83, 89	Clause 8.5
Post-Market	822, MDR	Chapter VII	Clause 8.2.1
Cybersecurity	FDA Guidance	MDCG 2019-16	IEC 62443
AI/ML	PCCP Framework	EU AI Act	ISO 42001

---

Troubleshooting

Problem	Possible Cause	Resolution
510(k) submission returned as RTA (Refuse to Accept)	Missing user fee, incomplete Form 3514, no predicate identified, or inadequate SE comparison	Review the RTA checklist per FDA guidance; verify payment, complete all eSTAR fields, confirm K-number in FDA database, and address all technological characteristics in SE comparison
QSR compliance checker shows gaps in design controls (820.30)	Design History File incomplete or not aligned with ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 under QMSR	Map existing DHF to ISO 13485 Clause 7.3 structure; ensure design inputs, outputs, reviews, verification, and validation are documented with traceability
HIPAA risk assessment returns low score for technical safeguards	Missing encryption at rest/transit, no MFA implementation, or audit logging not enabled	Implement AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2+ in transit, MFA for all users with ePHI access, and comprehensive audit logging; run hipaa_risk_assessment.py with --category technical to validate
FDA AI request (Additional Information) received during 510(k) review	Performance testing insufficient, SE argument incomplete, or software documentation gaps	Respond within 180 days; address each question specifically; supplement with additional test data, clinical evidence, or software documentation per IEC 62304
QMSR transition gap analysis reveals significant differences	Organization structured QMS around legacy 21 CFR 820 rather than ISO 13485	Conduct systematic gap analysis mapping 820 subsections to ISO 13485 clauses; prioritize complaint handling (retained FDA requirement), risk-based evidence across all processes, and updated Quality Manual
Cybersecurity documentation rejected in premarket submission	SBOM incomplete, threat model missing, or coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy not published	Generate comprehensive SBOM in CycloneDX or SPDX format; complete STRIDE threat model per AAMI TIR57; publish CVD policy; document patch management lifecycle plan
AI/ML SaMD submission lacks Predetermined Change Control Plan	Adaptive algorithm deployed without PCCP framework	Develop PCCP covering modification types, validation protocol, impact assessment, performance monitoring, and user notification plan; include all four change categories with appropriate verification levels

---

Success Criteria

• 510(k) submission accepted on first attempt -- zero RTA deficiencies, with all eSTAR sections complete, user fee verified, predicate identified, and SE comparison addressing all technological characteristics
• QSR/QMSR compliance score above 85% -- as measured by qsr_compliance_checker.py, with all critical subsections (design controls, CAPA, document control) showing evidence of implementation
• HIPAA technical safeguards fully implemented -- AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2+ in transit, MFA enforced, audit controls active, and automatic logoff configured for all systems handling ePHI
• FDA submission timeline targets met -- 510(k) traditional within 90 days, De Novo within 150 days, PMA within 180 days, tracked via fda_submission_tracker.py milestones
• QMSR transition completed -- Quality Manual references ISO 13485 clause structure, all SOPs mapped, FDA-specific retained requirements addressed, and internal audit conducted against QMSR requirements
• Cybersecurity documentation complete for all connected devices -- SBOM, threat model, security testing reports, vulnerability disclosure policy, and patch management plan included in premarket submissions

---

Scope & Limitations

In Scope:

• FDA regulatory pathway selection (510(k), De Novo, PMA) with decision framework and comparison
• 510(k) submission process including eSTAR requirements, SE comparison, and RTA prevention
• Quality System Regulation (21 CFR 820) and QMSR (ISO 13485:2016 alignment) compliance assessment
• HIPAA Security Rule safeguard evaluation for medical device software
• Device cybersecurity requirements including SBOM, threat modeling, and PATCH Act compliance
• AI/ML SaMD framework including PCCP, GMLP principles, and training data characterization
• Cross-framework mapping between FDA, EU MDR, and ISO 13485

Out of Scope:

• Preparation or writing of actual FDA submission documents -- this skill provides frameworks and gap analysis, not document authoring
• Clinical trial design, execution, or statistical analysis for PMA clinical data
• FDA establishment registration, device listing, or UDI system implementation
• Post-market surveillance reporting (MDR, MedWatch) beyond process guidance
• De novo classification request scientific review preparation
• Direct interaction with FDA reviewers or Pre-Submission (Q-Sub) meeting facilitation

Important Notes:

• The QMSR became effective February 2, 2026 -- all manufacturers must now comply with ISO 13485:2016 as incorporated by reference, with FDA-specific retained requirements
• The Quality System Inspection Technique (QSIT) has been withdrawn and replaced with updated inspection procedures under Compliance Program 7382.850
• Risk-based thinking is now expected across all QMS processes under QMSR, not just design controls

---

Integration Points

Skill	Integration	When to Use
quality-manager-qms-iso13485	ISO 13485 QMS implementation aligned with QMSR; process management and supplier qualification	When implementing QMS satisfying both ISO 13485 certification and FDA QMSR requirements
mdr-745-specialist	Cross-framework mapping for dual US/EU market submissions; technical documentation alignment	When medical device requires both FDA clearance/approval and EU MDR CE marking
capa-officer	CAPA process management per ISO 13485 Clause 8.5 (replacing legacy 820.100 under QMSR)	When managing corrective and preventive actions within the FDA quality system
risk-management-specialist	ISO 14971 risk management integrated with design controls and cybersecurity risk assessment	When conducting risk analysis for premarket submissions per 820.30(g) and AAMI TIR57
eu-ai-act-specialist	Cross-jurisdictional AI/ML compliance for devices marketed in both US and EU	When AI-enabled medical device requires both FDA PCCP framework and EU AI Act conformity assessment
infrastructure-compliance-auditor	Technical cybersecurity validation for connected device security controls	When documenting cybersecurity architecture and SBOM for premarket submissions

---

Tool Reference

fda_submission_tracker.py

Tracks FDA submission milestones and calculates regulatory timelines for 510(k), De Novo, and PMA pathways.

Flag	Required	Description
<project_dir>	Yes	Path to project directory containing submission documents
--type <pathway>	No	Submission type: 510k (default), de_novo, pma, pma_supplement
--json	No	Output results in JSON format

Output: Milestone tracking with completion status, timeline calculations against FDA review goals, phase progress (planning, preparation, submission, review, decision), and overdue milestone alerts.

qsr_compliance_checker.py

Assesses compliance with 21 CFR Part 820 / QMSR by analyzing project documentation for evidence of implementation.

Flag	Required	Description
<project_dir>	Yes	Path to project directory containing QMS documentation
--section <section>	No	Check specific QSR section (e.g., 820.30 for design controls, 820.100 for CAPA)
--json	No	Output results in JSON format

Output: Per-section compliance status, evidence found (document patterns and keyword matches), compliance percentage, gap identification with required evidence descriptions.

hipaa_risk_assessment.py

Evaluates HIPAA Security Rule safeguards for medical device software and connected devices.

Flag	Required	Description
<project_dir>	Yes	Path to project directory for assessment
--category <cat>	No	Assess specific category: administrative, physical, technical, or all (default)
--json	No	Output results in JSON format

Output: Per-safeguard compliance status across administrative (Section 164.308), physical (Section 164.310), and technical (Section 164.312) categories, with weighted scoring, evidence detection, and remediation recommendations.