Britt Biocomputing | AI Governance for Regulated Science
AI Validation & Assurance · Regulated Drug Development

Validation assurance for probabilistic systems in regulated science.

Where reproducibility is bounded, the validated state is a moving target, and conventional CSV practices were not designed for the sources of risk these systems introduce.

Britt Biocomputing builds the validation evidence that holds anyway — the plans, risk assessments, supplier qualifications, and audit trails your QMS needs before an inspector asks for them. Grounded in published frameworks that extend the FDA seven-step credibility framework, ICH Q9(R1), and the GAMP® 5 / GAMP® AI Guide lineage.

GAMP® local CoP Co-Chair ISPE and PDA member TIRS error taxonomy under review
01 / Where this shows up

If any of these sound familiar, this is the work.

We put an LLM in front of deviation triage — and QA is asking what the validation package looks like.

There's a defensible answer. It starts with context of use, not with the model.

Our AI vendor passed SOC 2. Our auditor still wants supplier qualification evidence.

SOC 2 doesn't cover silent model changes or inherited validation. VALID Trust does.

The model is frozen. So why does the system keep behaving differently?

The failure modes live in the harness — prompts, retrieval, tools, guardrails. Those drift, and they're validatable.

02 / What lands in your QMS

Named artifacts, not advisory decks.

  • Validation plans & protocolsScoped to context of use, model, harness, and human-in-the-loop.
  • Risk assessmentsBuilt on a published failure-mode taxonomy, mapped to ICH Q9(R1).
  • Supplier qualification packagesAI vendor qualification under the VALID Trust methodology.
  • Traceability & capture-layer designSo every AI decision is inspectable after the fact.
  • Validation summary reportsThe document your inspector actually reads.
Working with Britt Biocomputing

Three ways to engage: fixed-fee exposure screens and prioritized risk assessments, scoped engagements that produce inspection-ready evidence, and a fractional AI quality lead for teams that need the role before they can hire for it.

Work is sized to the consequence of error and to the maturity of your current posture.

See the full services overview →
03 / Frameworks

An integrated body of work, applied to your system.

Every engagement runs on frameworks that are public and citable. Your auditor can read the methodology before they read your evidence.

Flagship framework

House of AI Trust™

Five-layer governance architecture

The umbrella framework: organizes AI controls in regulated drug development across five layers — from foundational context-of-use definition through model credibility, composite system controls, monitoring, and human accountability. The other three frameworks below operate within or alongside the House.

Read the flagship guide →
HOUSE OF AI TRUST
L5Business ROI
investable
L4Domain + Process Context
useful
L3Control LayerVALIDATION · MONITORING · HITL
defensible
L2AI Governance
manageable
L1Trust Infrastructure
possible
L3 is where Britt Biocomputing operates. Four threads run through every layer: Security · Explainability · Communication · Supplier Qualification
Supporting frameworks
02

Probabilistic Validation Lifecycle

Seven-step execution model

Adapts the V-model to systems where reproducibility is bounded rather than absolute. Maps cleanly onto GAMP 5 lifecycle stages while extending them for probabilistic behavior, drift, and continuous verification.

Read →
03

VALID Trust

Four-pillar supplier qualification

A framework for qualifying AI suppliers and inheriting validation evidence in regulated environments. Extends GAMP 5 supplier qualification into non-deterministic upstream components.

Read →
04

Probabilistic Failure Mode Taxonomy

6 × 6 classification matrix

A public framework for classifying probabilistic AI failures in GxP regulated drug development by both error type and origin, mapped against GAMP 5, ICH Q9(R1), and the FDA seven-step credibility framework.

Read →
04 / Insights

Latest writing

August 2026

When a Check Doesn't Run

Capture must distinguish three states — passed, failed, and did not run — because a check that never fires leaves nothing behind, and a missing record reads as nothing wrong. Recording the expected check-set per decision, and tiering the response to capture failure by action class, closes the blind spot.

August 2026

The Last Deterministic Thing: The Unified Capture Layer

Determinism doesn't have to live in the model if it lives in the record of what the model did — making replay a binary pass/fail criterion an inspector can execute without trusting the sponsor.

July 2026

Beyond the Weights: Harness Monitoring as the Validation Leash

Freezing the weights does not freeze the system. A five-surface taxonomy of where the harness drifts — and why each one is a change control trigger.

July 2026

Balancing the Equation: Why HITL Is a Variable, Not a Constant

Every other human carrying regulatory load in a plant is qualified before they are trusted with it. The AI reviewer is the exception.

All insights →

Twenty minutes to find out whether this is your problem.

A scoping call is free and specific: what you've deployed, what your QA function is asking for, and what the evidence gap actually is.

Book a scoping call Or see the full services overview →