Compliance investigation case management that builds the cited case file for you
Investigations close in a median of 18 days, every finding cited.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that takes an ethics and compliance investigation from the report to a signed report and corrective actions: scope, legal hold, evidence, interviews, findings and sign-off in one case file. Compliance Investigation Case Management adds six agents that collect the evidence, lay it on one cited timeline, plan the interviews from its gaps and draft the report, for the investigator to decide and counsel to sign.
How to choose AI solutions for life sciences →
Updated
A report comes in through Speak Up — a speaker program, a meal over the cap, a sign-in sheet that does not add up. The investigator exports email from the archive, expense reports and receipts, CRM call notes, event records and training records, de-duplicates them, types a chronology into a spreadsheet and writes the interview questions from memory. Most of the cycle is spent gathering and ordering evidence before anyone has been interviewed.
The contradictions hide between systems. The sign-in sheet lives in the event system, the receipt in the expense system and the email asking for a separate bar ticket in the archive, so nobody sees all three on one line. Second interviews follow because a gap was not on the outline, and every sentence of the report has to be checked against its exhibit by hand — a statement without its exhibit does not survive counsel or a regulator.
Estimated split for a typical speaker-program case, by hand and with the solution. Interviews still take the time they take.
Six agents triage the report, collect the evidence, lay it on one timeline, weigh each allegation, plan the interviews from the gaps and draft the report; the investigator decides each finding and counsel signs.
IC-1042 at Northwind Bio: an anonymous report about Corventa speaker dinners in Atlanta North. High risk, under counsel direction, 4 custodians on legal hold LH-2026-031. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
The case bar shows IC-1042 — HCP interactions, US Southeast, subject Ryan Castell, territory manager, counsel Omar Haddad — on day 18, due Nov 2, against an industry median of 28. Report SU-2214 is already on the timeline, its key passages highlighted. Under it, 2,318 items wait on legal hold: 1,684 emails, 412 CRM notes, 96 expense lines, 58 event records, 4 training records and 64 policies.
SU-2214: “Drinks go on a separate bill so the dinner looks like it is under the limit. I have seen this since spring.”
The evidence collector reads 2,318 items for 4 custodians and keeps 16 exhibits in 14.2 s. The timeline builder lays 22 events in date order across 6 sources, each linked to the passage it rests on, and flags 11 where sources disagree. The policy analyst lays 5 allegations against 5 policy clauses; its proposals wait for Lena's decision.
Agents at work on IC-1042 — “read-only · legal hold respected”.
Seven lanes — Speak Up, Events, Expenses & payments, Email, CRM, Records & HR, Interviews — and a close-up of the Jul 16 dinner. On Jul 14 Ryan Castell emails the venue coordinator at Lakeline Meeting Services. The timeline builder links that email to the card payment two days later, and the panel opens EX-16 at the highlighted passage.
EX-16: “Can you ask Bellhaven to put the bar on its own ticket? The dinner has to stay under $125 a head on our side.”
Three sources disagree on one night. The sign-in sheet for program SP-26-0716 carries 8 signatures. The Bellhaven Steakhouse receipt shows 5 covers and $1,610.40, including a $488 bar bill, paid in two card transactions — $998.40 at 21:51 and $612.00 at 21:58. ER-55821 claims $998.40 for 8 HCPs, $124.80 a head; ER-55822 files $612.00 as an “office lunch”.
“Same day, another source disagrees: Program 7 · 8 signatures on the sheet.”
On Oct 6 a practice manager in Marietta reports that Dr. Lund received a thank-you note for the Jul 16 dinner at Bellhaven while she was at a conference in Denver. The intake agent reads SU-2291 in 3.8 s, classifies it HCP interactions, high risk, and matches it to IC-1042 at 91% — same program, same restaurant, an HCP on the sign-in sheet. Lena decides whether to add it to the case as an exhibit.
“Checked protections — anti-retaliation notice sent to the reporter.”
The interview planner reads 4 gaps on the timeline — who signed for the HCPs who were not there, who approved ER-55822 and why, why needs assessments were waived, whether prescribing drove the add-on programs. It writes 17 questions for 4 people and puts them on the Interviews lane: Alana Pierce on Oct 9, Jess Alvarado on Oct 10, Mia Torrance on Oct 13 and Ryan Castell, the subject, on Oct 14.
The counsel notice goes on every employee outline — 3 of the 4.
Ryan Castell's outline has 7 questions grouped by allegation, each with the timeline event it tests, the gap it closes and the exhibit to show — “Jul 14 · Email”, G2, EX-16. The interview opens with the counsel notice. Lena can add a question, send the outline to counsel or record her notes.
Counsel notice: “I am working with Omar Haddad, who represents Northwind Bio, not you personally. This conversation is privileged; the privilege belongs to the company, which may decide to share it.”
Each allegation sits beside its clause of SOP-HCP-014, with evidence for, evidence against and open questions. For A3, meal cap exceeded and split across two reports, the analyst proposes substantiated at 96%: three records agree. Lena marks A1 to A4 substantiated, each recorded in the audit trail with her name. A5, needs assessments skipped for the added programs, was found outside the reported scope, so it goes to Omar Haddad first.
A3: “Three records agree. The real cost was $322 a head — $985.40 over the cap for 5 people.”
The report writer turns the 11 flagged events into the chronology and Lena's decisions — never the proposals — into the findings, then adds the root cause and corrective actions in the house format. Every statement links to its exhibit, and the draft carries the privileged and confidential label. She can edit it or export it to Word.
The report cannot go to counsel while a statement is uncited or an allegation is still undecided.
Lena sends the report to Omar Haddad for sign-off. Once he signs, 6 corrective actions become tasks with owners and due dates — among them recovering the $985.40 over the cap and the $612.00 mis-filed charge with internal audit, correcting the Jul 16 transparency records for every listed HCP who did not attend, and a monitoring rule that flags split charges at one merchant on one day.
The banner: signed by Omar Haddad — “6 corrective actions created as tasks; the case moved to Remediation.”
The same investigation, seen by the five people who work it — in their own words, and what changes.
Six agents triage the report, collect the evidence, lay it on one timeline, weigh each allegation, plan the interviews from the gaps and draft the report; the investigator decides each finding and counsel signs.
Reads each Speak Up report from the web form, hotline or email, proposes its category, risk and whether counsel direction is needed, and matches it to open and closed cases.
Collects email, CRM, expense, event, HR and training records for the custodians and dates in scope, under legal hold, and keeps the source, custodian and SHA-256 fingerprint of every item.
Lays one event per fact on the timeline with the passage it rests on, flags dates where sources disagree and links events that belong together.
Sets each allegation against its policy clause, lists the evidence for and against with exhibits, names the open gaps and proposes a finding with a confidence.
Turns the gaps on the timeline into interview outlines, witnesses first and the subject last; each question names the event it tests and the exhibit to show.
Drafts the report in the house format — allegations and scope, method, chronology, findings, root cause, corrective actions — from the timeline and the investigator's decisions.
Decides each finding; counsel signs. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about a case, an exhibit, a person or a rule. Every answer cites the exhibit it rests on.
Was the split bar bill planned?
It looks planned. On Jul 14 Ryan Castell emailed the venue coordinator: “Can you ask Bellhaven to put the bar on its own ticket? The dinner has to stay under $125 a head.” Two days later the bill was paid in two card transactions seven minutes apart — $998.40 and $612.00 — and filed as two expense reports, one as an “office lunch”. That is what SOP-HCP-014 §6.4 forbids.
What is the strongest evidence for the sign-in sheet allegation?
The receipt and the venue booking put the Jul 16 dinner at 3 or 4 HCPs at most, against 8 signatures: the receipt shows 5 covers including the speaker and the rep, the booking a party of 6. A CRM note the next morning records Dr. Brooks saying she missed it. Still open: who signed for the HCPs who were not there — on Ryan Castell's outline for Oct 14.
How much money is involved?
For Jul 16 alone: the real bill for 5 covers was $1,610.40 against $625.00 allowed at $125 a head — $985.40 over the cap — plus $612.00 mis-filed as an “office lunch”. Speaker fees for the nine programs total $22,500. The recovery action is with Priya Raman, due Oct 31.
Do we need to correct transparency reports?
Yes. The Jul 16 meal was reported at $124.80 for each of 8 HCPs, but the receipt shows room for 3 at most, so at least 4 of those records name someone who was not there. Those records must be corrected, the value per HCP who did attend restated, and the other 8 programs reviewed the same way. The action is with Sam Patel, due Nov 6.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Privilege, findings, privacy, sources and sign-off are settings. The safeguards your procedure requires are locked on.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Start these cases under counsel direction | HCP interactions, anti-bribery, retaliation, patient support | On · off |
| Scope changes need counsel approval | On | Locked on — required by the investigations procedure |
| Open every employee interview with the counsel notice | On | Locked on — required for every employee interview |
| Show the agents' proposed finding | On | On · off, to decide each allegation without seeing a proposal first |
| Call out proposals below this confidence | 70% | 60% · 70% · 80% |
| EU employee data stays in the EU region | On | On · off; cross-border transfers need the data protection officer's approval |
| Default collection window | Allegation dates ± 90 days | Allegation dates ± 60 days · ± 90 days · Calendar year to date |
| Report sign-off, HCP interactions and anti-bribery | Omar Haddad | Omar Haddad · Priya Raman · Dana Okafor · HR counsel |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample case data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (a published whistleblowing and incident-management benchmark, 2025, 4,000+ organisations — median closure 28 days, substantiation 44–46%). Context: US DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (Sept 2024); HHS-OIG Special Fraud Alert: Speaker Programs (Nov 2020); Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981) on the counsel notice. People, companies, products and cases named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that takes an ethics and compliance investigation from the report to a signed report and corrective actions: scope, legal hold, evidence, interviews, findings and sign-off in one case file. Compliance Investigation Case Management adds six agents that collect the evidence, lay it on one cited timeline, plan the interviews from its gaps and draft the report, for the investigator to decide and counsel to sign.
The evidence collector reads the custodians and dates in scope under legal hold — email, CRM, expense, event, HR and training records. The timeline builder lays one event per fact on seven lanes, each linked to the passage it rests on, flags dates where sources disagree and links events that belong together, such as an email two days before a split payment.
No. The policy and substantiation analyst sets each allegation against its policy clause and proposes a finding with a confidence; it never records one. The investigator decides every finding, and the report writer uses her decisions, never the proposals.
The interview planner reads the open gaps on the timeline and writes an outline per person, witnesses first and the subject last. Every question names the event it tests and the exhibit to show, witnesses get no leading questions, and every employee outline opens with the counsel notice.
Categories you choose start under counsel direction, and their interview memos and drafts carry the privileged and confidential label. Scope changes go to counsel first. The intake agent never reveals a reporter's identity, and every named reporter receives an anti-retaliation notice.
Yes. EU cases are processed and stored in the EU region, and a US investigator opening EU evidence triggers a request for the data protection officer's approval. Both are settings, with the evidence sources connected read-only.
Yes. The agents collect, order, propose and draft; the investigator routes each report, decides each finding and sends the report. Counsel approves scope changes and signs, and every agent step and human decision is on the case's audit trail.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your investigations procedure, policies and SOPs, and the systems your evidence lives in — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on a closed case of your own first.
Every speaker program scored on the OIG's red flags, before and after it runs.
1-min demoOpen Payments Recipient ValidationEvery recipient matched to the right NPI and licence, with the evidence
1-min demoThird-Party Due DiligenceEvery third party risk-tiered before the contract is signed, from its real owners.
1-min demoWe'll run Compliance Investigation Case Management on a closed case of your own.