Review (2026-07-26): approved as the tool-lane template by Nicolas Burri (C-V2 red-pen round; QMS/engineering domain-expert review, no legal-counsel claim — legal review deferred to before any commercial distribution).
Intended-Use Specification — LQMS as a QMS / Document-Control Tool (TEMPLATE)¶
Tool-lane TEMPLATE, free of any organisation's specifics. Per ADR-0061 §2 the intended-use specification ships as a seeded template document in LQMS itself (C-V2a); each organisation that uses LQMS in its quality management system instantiates it for its own use. The instantiation is organisation-specific by design (ADR-0061 §3) — this template is the skeleton it fills, not a substitute for it: what LQMS is intended to be used for here is a statement only the operating organisation can make. This document references no instance document — see the lane rule.
Status: working draft for review, not yet a controlled document.
Norm handling: standards (ISO/IEC/EN) are paraphrased with clause citations only; no verbatim normative text (conventions.md; ADR-0061 D-5).
1. Purpose and regulatory frame¶
This document states what LQMS is intended to be used for at {{organisation}}, by whom, in what deployment context, and — as importantly — what it is not intended for. It is the intended-use input to the organisation's own tool validation.
The applicable duty is ISO 13485 §4.1.6: the organisation that uses software in its quality management system validates that software for its intended use, proportionate to risk, before first use and after changes, and retains records (§4.2.5). This document supplies the "intended use" that the validation is measured against; the companion tool-risk assessment ({{riskAssessmentRef}}; skeleton: tool-risk-assessment.md) supplies the "proportionate to risk" input, and the CSV package (ADR-0061: release-validation report, IQ checklist, PQ protocol) supplies the evidence.
LQMS is not itself medical-device software and is not placed on any market as a device. It is a QMS / document-control tool. The validation vocabulary (intended use, IQ/OQ/PQ, tool-risk) is borrowed from GAMP-5 and the auditors' expectations, not because LQMS is a regulated product.
2. Instantiation fields¶
Mechanics (template-vars declarations + brace placeholders, camelCase keys):
ADR-0049 §2 and the
field guide.
organisation | Organisation validating its use of LQMS | yes |
instanceName | Deployment / instance identifier | yes |
lqmsRelease | LQMS release in use (tag + git SHA) | yes |
qmsScope | The QMS domain this instance governs — whose content it holds | yes |
identityProvider | Identity provider authenticating the users | no | OIDC / Keycloak
userScale | Expected scale (users, document versions) | no | ~100 users, low hundreds of thousands of versions
riskAssessmentRef | Companion tool-risk assessment (document id) | yes |
backupCadence | Backup + restore-rehearsal cadence on this deployment (automated / manual) | yes |
hardeningStatus | Deployment hardening per the operations guide (applied / pending) | yes |
esignatureStatus | Electronic-signature capability in this deployment (configured / not configured) | no | not configured
emailDelivery | Email / notification delivery in this deployment (enabled / disabled) | no | disabled
Instance identity: {{organisation}} · instance {{instanceName}} · LQMS {{lqmsRelease}} · scope of use: {{qmsScope}}.
3. Intended use¶
LQMS is intended to serve as {{organisation}}'s controlled-document and quality-records system for {{qmsScope}}. The intended functions, each already realised in the tool — the instantiation confirms which of them it relies on, and states any it deliberately does not use:
- Document control. Authoring, review, approval, release, revision, effectivity and periodic review of controlled documents (SOPs, work instructions, templates, records). The life cycle is structural: a document is an ordered series of versions, each recording author, state and change description; release is gated by a configurable review policy (four-eyes by default). The canonical content record is the document tree, with markdown/PDF derived from it (ADR-0057); released content is frozen and the vehicle for change is a new version, not an in-place edit.
- The correct version is served. The currently effective version is derived — the released, non-revoked version with the latest effective date not after now — never a stored, drift-prone flag (REQ-EFF-002; ADR-0015). Periodic review is flagged and escalated; the tool never silently revokes a governing document.
- Training / read-acknowledgement. A released document that requires acknowledgement fans out one acknowledgement obligation per addressed person; the acknowledgement is a controlled, version-precise record; status is reportable per document / role / scope, gaps first (ADR-0022, ADR-0052/ ADR-0053). Scope is read-and-acknowledge, not full training management.
- Traceability. Keyed trace items (requirements, risks, risk-controls) and typed links (satisfies / verifies / mitigates / implemented-by / derives-from / references) with coverage and end-to-end chain views. All traceability status is derived live, never stored — the house doctrine — with per-hop suspect flags when an upstream item moves (ADR-0078, ADR-0079, ADR-0086).
- Exports and audit packs. Server-side PDF export of released documents over the one canonical render path, with a §4.2.4-style identity header and an honest "uncontrolled copy" distribution footer (ADR-0074); scope audit packs and the traceability report as a zip of effective-released PDFs plus a hash manifest carrying a SHA-256 of every PDF, with transitive citation closure bounded by access rules (REQ-DOC-037; ADR-0083).
- Audit trail. Life-cycle and export events are recorded as an append-only audit trail tied to the acting identity.
4. Intended users¶
LQMS is operated by named people authenticated through the organisation's identity provider ({{identityProvider}}; ADR-0011/ ADR-0012). Access is governed by roles granted per scope; the tool distinguishes workflow roles (who may act in the life cycle) from audience roles (who a document is addressed to). The intended user roles — the instantiation states who holds each:
| User | Intended role in LQMS |
|---|---|
| QMB / Quality management | Owns the QMS structure: creates scopes, configures document types and review policies, manages users and training, reads coverage and acknowledgement status. |
| Authors | Create and edit drafts, author trace items and links, submit for review. |
| Reviewers / approvers | Review and approve/release under the applicable review policy (four-eyes: the releaser is not the author). |
| Addressees (document audience) | Read released documents addressed to their organisational role and record their acknowledgement. |
| Auditors | Read released documents, traceability and coverage, and pull audit packs / the traceability report as verifiable evidence bundles. (VIEW-bounded; export reflects exactly what the caller may see.) |
| System administrator | Deploys, bootstraps the first admin, operates backups and upgrades. |
5. Deployment context¶
- Self-hosted, single-instance, single-node "small" tier. One deployment per organisation, sized for roughly {{userScale}}, business-hours availability, with backup/restore as the data-durability control (ADR-0018).
- Reference topology: the LQMS application (Quarkus fast-jar), PostgreSQL, and the identity
provider, wired by the
deploy/Docker Compose stack and self-bootstrapping on first boot. A real deployment hardens the demo defaults (credentials, TLS, the two-role database hardening) perdocs/operations/deployment.md— status on this deployment: {{hardeningStatus}}. - Data separation between mandators and projects is enforced in the database by row-level security, independent of application code (ADR-0009/ ADR-0026/ ADR-0027).
- Data durability is the scripted ordered backup with restore-rehearsal verification writing dated records (ADR-0060; RPO ≤ 24 h / RTO ≤ 1 business day per ADR-0018). Cadence on this deployment: {{backupCadence}} — see §7; a manual cadence is an honest status note, not a silent assumption.
- Operating environment: a current evergreen browser over the network; the deployment is responsible for TLS termination. Email/notification delivery is {{emailDelivery}} (ADR-0041 — disabled by default).
6. Explicitly NON-intended uses¶
Stated so the validation scope is bounded and the tool is not relied on beyond what it does today.
Tool-level exclusions — true of every installation at this release:
- Not a product-development ALM (yet). The product-development / regulatory-conformity axes (design-history / GSPR-style conformity views, the full application-lifecycle-management arc) are designed but not shipped — ADR-0084 is proposed, not accepted. LQMS is not intended to be the ALM of record for a medical-device development until that arc lands and is validated.
- No electronic-signature / 21 CFR Part 11 or Annex 11 claim unless configured and claimed. LQMS is designed to be Part 11 / Annex 11 capable, configurable per deployment (ADR-0014, accepted at the design level; the REQ-SIG requirements are pending the next baseline). Signing status on this deployment: {{esignatureStatus}}. Where it is not configured, releases are plain four-eyes approvals — audited and identity-bound, but not asserted to be Part 11 electronic signatures; an LQMS approval must not be represented as a compliant e-signature until the signing capability is configured, validated and claimed.
- Not a validated medical device or MDSW. LQMS is a software tool used in a QMS; it is not itself a medical device and carries no device conformity claim.
- Not a high-availability / zero-RPO system. Single-node, business-hours, backup-based recovery (up to ~24 h of data at risk between backups). Not intended for continuous-availability or real-time-critical use.
- Not a notification / messaging platform. Where email is disabled, obligations (reviews, acknowledgements, periodic reviews) surface in the tool; the deployment does not push external notifications.
Instance-specific exclusions — the instantiation states its own, at least: whose controlled records this instance does not hold (it is the operating organisation's own QMS unless declared otherwise — mandator separation is a separation control, not an offer to host third parties' records), and which domains, projects or document classes are deliberately kept outside it.
7. Honest status notes (for the validation record)¶
An intended-use specification must not imply a control that is not yet operating. The instantiation records the honest status of each field-driven item, at least:
- Backup cadence ({{backupCadence}}): where the cadence is manual, say so — the mechanism is implemented and restore-verified, but continued execution depends on operator discipline, which is a residual operational risk (tool-risk assessment TR-003). Automating the cadence — a natural first ADR-0089 recurring obligation — is the closing act before relying on LQMS for retained records at §4.2.5 scale.
- E-signatures ({{esignatureStatus}}): capability designed; state whether it is enabled here — see §6.2.
- Deployment hardening ({{hardeningStatus}}): state whether the production hardening is applied; several mitigations in the companion risk assessment depend on it.
- Conformity / ALM axes: ADR-0084 proposed — see §6.1.
8. Open points for the red-pen round (template-level)¶
- Does this template earn its keep? The intended-use instantiation is organisation-specific by design (ADR-0061 §3), so this skeleton carries the parts that recur: the §4.1.6 frame, the function inventory, the role model, the deployment context and the tool-level exclusions. Judgement made: it is not artificial — those five parts are identical for every customer, and the alternative is each customer re-deriving them from the ADRs. Confirm, or fold the skeleton into the risk template and let intended use stay purely per-organisation.
- Duplication with the instantiation is deliberate. Unlike the risk assessment (where the instance is a thin record of judgments over the template's rows), an intended-use instantiation reads as a standalone specification, so it restates §3–§6 in its own voice with its own selections. That is how template instantiation works in the tool (the instantiated body is the template body with the values substituted) — it is not drift. Confirm you want it that way here.
- The function inventory doubles as a capability list. §3 states what the tool does, which makes it useful but also makes it a maintenance point at every release. Alternative: reference the requirements baseline instead of restating functions. Restating was chosen because an auditor reads intended use standalone.
userScaleas a field parameterises the ADR-0018 "small tier" numbers. If those numbers should be fixed tool statements rather than per-instance values, the field goes away.