Announcing AI-Native Market Access Product for Regulated Products

Learn More

Blogs

MedTech

The ultimate guide to the EU MDR and IVDR general safety and performance requirements (GSPR)

By

Bethaney Lentz

May 9, 2022

4 min read

This article is an excerpt from The ultimate guide to the EU MDR and IVDR general safety and performance requirements (GSPR) ebook.

Table of contents

Overview

With the initial rollout of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) complete, medical device companies are shifting focus to the sister In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) which has rolling effective dates starting in May 2022. Like the MDR, the IVDR also includes new General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPR). The expanded 2nd edition of this ebook includes a detailed summary of the IVDR GSPR regulations in addition to those of the MDR. It provides you with practical guidance on how to meet the GSPR requirements for all types of medical technology products. This ebook, however, should not take the place of reviewing the actual regulations and consulting regulatory experts when needed

Timeline

The EU MDR submission became mandatory from the previous MDD directive on May 26, 2021, and the EU IVDR effective date is quickly approaching. In fact, all submissions for new devices under the new EU IVDR must be implemented no later than May 25, 2022. Below is a high-level overview of key dates for both regulations.

*Note that the timeline for compliance was extended in 2021. Class D (high-risk) devices have until 2025 to comply with IVDR, while Class C devices have until 2026. Class B and Class A sterile devices have until 2027 to comply with IVDR.

Terminology

What’s the difference between Essential Requirements, General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPR), and Essential Principles. In order to have a meaningful dialogue, let’s first discuss the three (3) main terms used in the industry.

#1 Essential requirements

The ‘Essential Requirements’ is the backbone for establishing conformity with the Medical Device Directive (MDD 93/42/EEC) and the Active Implantable Medical Device Directive (AIMDD 90/385/EEC).  Detailed within Annex I of the MDD and AIMDD, the ‘Essential Requirements’ laid out the requirements that devices must meet in order to state compliance to the directives. With the implementation of the new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745), the ‘Essential Requirements’ will become superseded by the new EU MDR General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs).

#2 Essential principles

The IMDRF laid out Essential Principles requirements in a document entitled Essential Principles of Safety and Performance of Medical Devices and IVD Medical Devices. From a high-level perspective, three basic tenets make up these ‘Essential Principles’:

  • A device must be designed to be safe and perform effectively throughout its lifecycle.
  • Device manufacturers must maintain all design characteristics.
  • Devices must be used in a way that is consistent with how it was designed.

Many countries use the term ‘Essential Principles’ when compiling the documentation required to determine compliance to the law.  For instance, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) uses the term ‘Essential Principles Checklist’. Regardless of the term used, Essential Principles are of similar nature and overlap many of the Essential Requirements and new GSPRs.

#3 General safety and performance requirements (GSPR)

As of May 26, 2021, medical device manufacturers must start to comply with Annex I – General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) of the new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745).  GSPRs are specific to the European MDR and IVDR. If you hear any other term (i.e. Essential Principles), it most likely means it is not referencing the European market.

EU MDR/IVDR Annex I

Annex I of the EU MDR and IVDR details the specific requirements of the General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs). The GSPRs are broken down into three (3) chapters in Annex I, MDR 2017/745 and IVDR 2017/746:

  • Chapter 1 - General requirements
  • Chapter 2 - Requirements regarding design and manufacture
  • Chapter 3 - Requirements regarding the information supplied with the device

Chapter 1 - General requirements

Both the EU MDR and the EU IVDR outline General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) in great detail for medical device designers and manufacturers. The general requirements for each are almost identical and consist of the following:

  • Devices must perform in a way that aligns with the intended design.
  • They must not compromise the health or safety of a patient, user, or any other person associated with the device.
  • Risks must be reduced as much as possible, but not so much that they negatively affect the risk-benefit ratio.
  • Device manufacturers must implement and maintain a thorough, well-documented, and evaluative risk management system that continues to be updated throughout the life cycle of a device.
  • Manufacturers and designers must include any necessary measures for protecting users in cases where risks cannot be completely eliminated.
  • Manufacturers must provide users with information about any potential risks that remain. This information must be clear, easy to understand, and considerate of the users’ technical knowledge level, use environment, and any applicable medical conditions.
  • Devices must withstand the stresses of normal use for the duration of their lifecycle. Devices must be designed, manufactured, and packaged in a way that protects them from damage during transport and storage.
  • When it comes to risks and negative side effects that are known and foreseeable, designers and manufacturers must make every effort to minimize negative outcomes. They must also ensure that potential risks are acceptable when compared to the potential benefits of a device to its users.

Chapter 2 - Requirements regarding design and manufacture

The GSPRs also provide key details regarding specific information about the performance, design and manufacture of medical devices. As it relates to design inputs, the MDR and IVDR GSPRs provide highly detailed requirements relating to a device’s technical information. Further detail can be found in the comparison tables in Appendix A and Appendix B, where we have compared MDR to MDD and IVDR to IVDD.

Chapter 3 - Requirements regarding the information supplied with the device

The final key area of governance within the GSPRs relates to specific information a manufacturer must supply with a device. The general requirements for this information states that, “Each device shall be accompanied by the information needed to identify the device and its manufacturer, and by any safety and performance information relevant to the user, or any other person, as appropriate.” The requirements provide further detail as far as location - specific information that must be provided on the following:

  • The device label includes its UDI.
  • The user instructions.
  • The packaging of a device that is intended to maintain its sterile condition.

Medical devices are subject to significant regulations and a full understanding of EU MDR and/or IVDR labeling as defined in Annex 1 Chapter 3.

EU MDR/IVDR Annex II

In addition to the specific requirements identified within Annex I of the EU MDR and IVDR, Annex II, Technical Documentation, identifies additional requirements. Specifically, in both EU MDR and IVDR’s Section 4 – General Safety and Performance Requirements it states:

“the documentation shall contain information for the demonstration of conformity with the general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I that are applicable to the device taking into account its intended purpose, and shall include a justification, validation and verification of the solutions adopted to meet those requirements. The demonstration of conformity shall include:

(a) the general safety and performance requirements that apply to the device and an explanation as to why others do not apply;

(b) the method or methods used to demonstrate conformity with each applicable general safety and performance requirement;

(c) the harmonised standards, CS or other solutions applied; and

(d) the precise identity of the controlled documents offering evidence of conformity with each harmonised standard, CS or other method applied to demonstrate conformity with the general safety and performance requirements. The information referred to under this point shall incorporate a cross reference to the location of such evidence within the full technical documentation and, if applicable, the summary technical documentation.”

Let’s break this down into each part.

Requirement

(a) the general safety and performance requirements that apply to the device and an explanation as to why others do not apply;

What needs to be documented for the requirements that apply or the requirements that do not apply?

Each and every section of the EU MDR GSPR or EU IVDR should be assessed in its own right as it pertains to your medical device. When a requirement applies, a simple statement may be made that this requirement applies to the device. In practice this is often achieved using a checklist or table, with a column for applicability and a Yes/No answer against each requirement. When a requirement applies, you can move on to the other parts of demonstrating conformity regarding methods used and standards applied.

When a requirement is not applicable, a statement must be made to that effect, i.e. a ‘No’ in the applicability column. Additionally, it must be fully and properly justified. Such a justification may be something like ‘The device is not powered and is therefore not an active device. This requirement does not apply.' The justification should clearly state why the requirement has been deemed not to apply so that your notified body can understand your reasoning

Requirement

(b) the method or methods used to demonstrate conformity with each applicable general safety and performance requirement;

What is meant by “method or methods used”?

This relates to the way you complied with that GSPR requirement, historically it would be listed as a standard or other documentation reference that you have applied to demonstrate compliance, however, the question of ‘method or methods used’ is new to the MDR and it is expected that a verbal description be provided such as:

i. Risk analysis weighed against clinical evaluation benefit
ii. Performance intended demonstrated by design requirements, verification and validation

Requirement

(c) the harmonized standards, common standards (CS) or other solutions applied;

What are harmonized standards, common specifications (CS), and “other solutions”?

Harmonized standards

These are standards that have been specifically developed and assessed for compliance to a regulation or directive. They are published in the Official Journal of the European Union (sometimes just referred to as ‘the OJ’) and if you comply with these standards then there is a ‘presumption of conformity’ with that directive or regulation to which they have been harmonized. These harmonized standards can only be created by a recognized European Standard Organization (such as CEN or CENELEC). When a standard is harmonized, an annex is added that describes how the standard conforms to the directive or regulation. When using harmonized standards, you should make sure that you understand how the standard conforms so that you do not claim compliance when the standard either does not meet that requirement or only partially meets that requirement.

If a standard does not meet a certain requirement of the directive or regulation, or indeed only partially meets it, then you must employ additional mechanisms for compliance. If a harmonized standard meets part of a directive or regulation, then by complying with that standard you also fully meet the corresponding requirement(s) The list of harmonized standards continues to grow - refer to the “Healthcare Engineering” section of the European Commission’s Harmonized Standards page for current information. In this case, using an MDD harmonized standard and documenting a justification for doing so (i.e. how you believe the standard demonstrates compliance with the GSPRs), should provide sufficient evidence

Common specifications

Common Specifications (CS) are a new concept in the MDR. They allow the European Union to add additional requirements that must be met in order to claim compliance where harmonized standards do not exist or where relevant standards are considered insufficient. The definition of a Common Specification is:

‘A set of technical and/or clinical requirements, other than a standard, that provides a means of complying with the legal obligations applicable to a device, process or system.’

Requirement

(d) the precise identity of the controlled documents offering evidence of conformity with each harmonized standard, CS or other method applied to demonstrate conformity with the general safety and performance requirements. The information referred to under this point shall incorporate a cross- reference to the location of such evidence within the full technical documentation and, if applicable, the summary technical documentation;

What is the expectation for incorporating a "cross-reference to the location of such evidence within the full technical documentation"?

This means that someone looking at the document should be able to identify exactly where in the technical documentation that the compliance evidence can be found. For example, this may refer to test reports and their exact location, or it could even reference locations within a large document, depending on the GSPR and your particular documentation. (i.e. if you have included usability risks as part of a larger risk assessment, you may need to say ‘See Technical File XXX, Section XX, Doc RMF001 rev 3 lines 65-78’). In other cases it could just mean the whole document reference, i.e. Have you done risk management? – then yes, it is RMF001 rev 3. What the specific reference actually is depends on how you have managed your technical documentation and how defined it is (i.e. separate reports or one big one). There should be no ambiguity as to where the document is located

An example of a completed GSPR checklist could look something like this (applicable and nonapplicable examples are shown):

GSPR Description Applicable? Methods Applied Standards & Solutions Evidence
7 Devices shall be designed, manufactured, and packaged in such a way that their characteristics and performance during their intended use are not adversely affected during transport and storage, for example, through fluctuations of temperature and humidity, taking account of the instructions and information provided by the manufacturer Yes Design considers packaging requirements. Packaged product has been verified through shipping and transit testing. Product was stored at extremes of temperature and humidity. EN ISO 13585 QMS
EN ISO 15223-1
Labelling
ISTA 2A Testing
Design procedure XXXXXX, rev XX located in document management system
QMS certificate XXXXXX
Package design drawings XXXXXX, rev XX located in document management system
Product label XXXXXXX, rev XX found in section XX of Tech File XX ISTA 2A test report title XXXXX, dated XX/XX/XX found in section XX of Tech File XX
Storage condition test report title XXXXX, dated XX/XX/XX found in section XX of Tech File XX
11.5 Devices labelled as sterile shall be processed, manufactured, packaged and sterilised by means of appropraite, validated methods. No N/A - This does not apply to this device (device id XXXXX) as it is not a sterile device and cannot be sterilised. N/A - This does not apply to this device (device id XXXXX) as it is not a sterile device and cannot be sterilised. N/A - This does not apply to this device (device id XXXXX) as it is not a sterile device and cannot be sterilised.

Proactive monitoring & maintenance

Specification developers and manufacturers must continually maintain their technical documentation to stay compliant. Part of this process is to ensure that they take into account the "generally acknowledged state of the art".

Proactive monitoring

'State of the art'

There is no formal definition of ‘state of the art’ within the EU MDR or IVDR, although it is mentioned many times. ‘State of the art’ is an ongoing debate; however, it generally means that it embodies what is currently and generally accepted as good practice in the medtech industry. The ‘state of the art’ does not necessarily imply the most technologically advanced solution.

One consensus on state of the art is being up to date and compliant with the current and in effect standards that are applicable to your device. This means that if a standard is updated that your medical device is compliant with, you must evaluate that update to ensure that it would meet the EU MDR or EU IVDR ‘state of the art’ requirement. This is not a new requirement from the EU MDD but it is spelled out more clearly in the EU MDR.

The specification developer or manufacturer is ultimately responsible for determining if the updated standard applies or does not apply to their device(s). Either way, the justification should be documented within a gap analysis.

Monitoring for changes

Of course, 'state of the art' only applies if you actually know if something changed. This is why you need to develop a process for monitoring the standards that compliance is claimed. Every single standard that is associated with your technical documentation must be actively monitored, reviewed, and reported on.

If you have a product on the market and need a better way to monitor and maintain your General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPR) or Essential Principles, Rimsys can help. Rimsys digitizes and automates GSPR and Essential Requirements so you can dynamically update and proactively monitor changing standards and evidence files.

When a standard or evidence file changes, you will automatically be notified and can update one GSPR or all of your GSPRs as applicable with a single click of a button. If additional information is needed, such as testing, it’s also invaluable to ensure that all devices are identified. What used to take weeks of manual, error-prone administrative tasks is now done in seconds within a fully validated, secure, maintenance-free, cloud-based solution

Maintenance

Maintaining and updating your technical documentation is generally the hardest part of staying compliant. Robust processes must be established to ensure nothing slips through the cracks and show up as nonconformances during regulatory audits.

Gap analysis

In addition to meeting the ‘state of the art’ requirements and the continuous proactive monitoring of standards, once a change has been detected that affects the technical documentation, a proper and thorough gap analysis must be completed.

The gap analysis between the old versions and the new versions, or an evaluation of a brand new standard, must occur and be properly documented. The gap analysis should detail what is applicable and what is not applicable, with your supporting justification.

If something within the new or revised standard was applicable to your device, additional engineering testing, documentation, justification, and, in some instances design changes, may be needed to ensure compliance

GSPR updates

Once the gap analysis has been properly documented, specification developers and manufacturers must update their GSPRs.

These updates include finding the withdrawn or superseded standard or evidence file throughout each row within your GSPR table, for every single device on the market on which this change is applicable. This could be one table or dozens of tables depending on the complexity of the products and your product mix.

Without a holistic RIM system to help you, this is an error-prone process as is it tedious, administrative, and extremely easy to miss an inappropriate referenced standard or evidence file.

Extreme diligence on the regulatory or engineering team must occur to ensure these critical updates to the GSPRs are not missed and a gap analysis must be properly referenced throughout. Any justification for including or excluding a new standard or evidence file will be scrutinized by regulatory auditors, and without proper maintenance, may lead to additional review time.

Comparison table: EU MDR Annex I GSPRs vs EU MDD Annex I Essential Principles

To continue reading this eBook including Comparison Table of the EU MDR Annex I GSPR vs. the EU MDD Annex I Essential Requirements, please register to download the full version.

Similar posts

AI

From Regulatory Knowledge to Better Market Decisions: A Conversation with Steve Gens and James Gianoutsos

October 1, 2026

4 min read

AI is moving quickly from experimentation to implementation across life sciences. For regulatory teams, that raises a bigger question than where AI can automate a task:

How can organizations use AI to make better decisions while maintaining the traceability, expert oversight, and confidence regulatory work demands?

That was a central theme when James Gianoutsos, Founder and CEO of Rimsys, joined Steve Gens, Founder and Managing Partner of Gens & Associates, on the Regulatory Executive Podcast.

Their conversation explored the changing role of regulatory intelligence, the introduction of Rimsys Market Access, the importance of transparency in regulatory AI, and what these changes could mean for regulatory teams.

Regulatory knowledge has been difficult and costly to scale

For global medtech organizations, regulatory knowledge has traditionally been highly dependent on people.

A company may have specialists responsible for particular countries or regions, along with local representatives, distributors, consultants, and other experts. Those people develop deep knowledge of local regulations, pathways, and expectations.

The problem is that the knowledge often remains distributed across the organization. And maintaining that market-by-market expertise can become expensive as a company expands its portfolio and geographic footprint.

As James described during the podcast, large manufacturers may rely on dozens or even hundreds of internal employees, third-party distributors, local representatives, and other specialists to understand what it takes to bring products into different markets. Smaller organizations may rely more heavily on outside consultants and partners. Either way, the model can be costly and difficult to scale. 

But the cost isn't limited to what companies spend on expertise.

Steve described the workflow as a series of “start, stop” cycles: ask a local expert, verify whether the regulation is current, gather more information, and repeat. Each cycle consumes regulatory capacity and extends the time it takes to give the business a confident answer.

That creates another potentially more consequential expense: the cost of waiting.

When it takes months to understand what entering a market will require, commercial and product teams have less visibility into when revenue might begin, what resources will be needed, or whether the opportunity is worth pursuing. Regulatory teams spend valuable capacity assembling and validating information rather than applying their expertise to more strategic work.

Ultimately, scaling regulatory knowledge isn't simply an efficiency problem. It affects how quickly and confidently the business can decide where to invest.

The bigger question: Should we enter this market?

That challenge is central to Rimsys Market Access.

Most market-entry research begins with questions such as: How is the product classified? What's the regulatory pathway? What are the requirements?

Those questions establish whether a company can enter a market. But they don't necessarily tell the business whether it should.

Market Access is designed to help regulatory and commercial teams develop an earlier view of what market entry could involve, including classification, regulatory pathway, timeline, cost considerations, requirements and potential gaps. 

For commercial and product leaders, that provides greater predictability before committing budget and resources.

For regulatory leaders, it means starting with a structured plan rather than assembling every market assessment from scratch.

Moving regulatory knowledge from individuals into a shared system

During the conversation, James described one of AI's most significant opportunities as moving knowledge that has historically lived in people's heads into software.

The goal isn't to eliminate regulatory expertise. It's to make that expertise more scalable.

Market Access works from a curated regulatory corpus, allowing market-specific knowledge to be applied across workflows without requiring every initial question to go through the individual who happens to know that jurisdiction. Outputs are designed to trace back to the underlying regulation, guidance, or law. 

That can also change where regulatory professionals spend their time. Rather than focusing as heavily on finding information and assembling initial assessments, they can focus on reviewing the evidence, identifying gaps, applying judgment, and advising the business.

Steve described the concept as a subject-matter-expert assistant. James called it a workforce multiplier. 

Trust requires opening the regulatory AI “black box”

Speed isn't enough when the information is being used to inform regulatory decisions.

James and Steve returned repeatedly to the importance of knowing where an AI-generated answer comes from. As Steve summarized it during the discussion, transparency builds trust.

Market Access is designed around that principle. Its outputs are grounded in a curated regulatory corpus and traceable to the specific regulations, guidance, or laws supporting them. That gives regulatory professionals the ability to verify an answer rather than simply accept it. 

Human judgment remains essential as well. Market Access provides an upfront assessment, not a guarantee of a regulatory outcome. Reviewer interpretation and other factors can still affect what happens during the regulatory process.

The objective isn't to make uncertainty disappear. It's to make what is known, what the sources say, and where uncertainty remains much easier to see.

Connecting the market decision to execution

The discussion also pointed to a broader evolution in regulatory technology: moving from systems that primarily store regulatory information toward systems that help teams act on it.

That's where Market Access and Rimsys RIM play distinct but complementary roles.

Market Access is the planning layer. It helps teams determine whether, when, and how to enter a market.

Rimsys RIM is the execution layer. It manages the registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, and ongoing regulatory work required to act on that plan. 

Together, they create a path from the initial market decision through regulatory execution rather than leaving planning and execution disconnected.

A new role for AI in regulatory work

One of the most interesting themes from Steve and James's conversation was that AI's impact may ultimately be less about replacing individual tasks and more about expanding what regulatory teams can accomplish.

Better access to market-specific knowledge can help professionals work across more markets, spend less time gathering information, and devote more capacity to the judgment and strategic work that requires their expertise.

The technology is changing quickly, but the fundamentals of regulatory work remain: reliable information, domain expertise, transparency, and human judgment.

The opportunity is to apply those fundamentals at greater scale while giving the business a clearer answer to the question that comes before execution:

Not simply, “Can we enter this market?”

But, “Should we?”

Listen to the full conversation

Hear the complete discussion between Steve Gens, Founder and Managing Partner of Gens & Associates, and James Gianoutsos, Founder and CEO of Rimsys, on the Regulatory Executive Podcast for more on regulatory AI, market-entry planning, transparency, and the changing role of regulatory teams.

‍

AI

How Market Access Builds Trust in Regulatory Intelligence

By

Bethaney Lentz

September 18, 2026

4 min read

Why source traceability, regulatory specificity, and human judgment matter when AI informs a market-entry decision.

Regulatory professionals are not short on AI options. General-purpose tools can answer questions quickly and often sound convincing. But in medtech, a convincing answer is not the same thing as a decision you can defend.

That distinction matters most before a company commits to a new market. Teams need to understand how a product is classified, which pathway applies, how long entry may take, what it may cost, where the important gaps are, and what uncertainty still remains. Commercial leaders need that visibility to decide whether the opportunity is worth pursuing. Regulatory leaders need to know that the assessment is grounded in sources they can verify.

That is the trust standard behind Rimsys Market Access. It is not simply about producing regulatory information faster. It is about helping medtech teams decide whether, when, and how to enter a market before committing budget and resources, with outputs linked back to the regulations, guidance, and laws behind them.

Why fluency is not enough for regulatory work

A general AI tool can be useful for brainstorming, summarizing, and exploring a topic. The challenge comes when an answer has real regulatory consequences. A plausible response may still be incomplete, based on the wrong designation, or disconnected from the current source that should govern the decision.

Medtech makes this especially difficult because the same product can be treated differently across markets and product designations. Medical device, IVD, cosmetic, consumer, OTC, and combination-product considerations can change the regulatory read. A market-entry assessment has to account for that context rather than assume one answer travels cleanly from one jurisdiction to another.

For regulatory teams, the natural next question is: Where did this answer come from? If the system cannot show the underlying authority, the expert still has to rebuild the research before trusting the result. That limits the value of the speed AI was supposed to create in the first place.

Trust starts with a decision you can verify

Market Access is designed around a different outcome. The goal is not to give teams another stream of regulatory information to interpret. It is to provide a source-linked market plan that helps them answer the bigger business question: should we enter this market, not just can we?

For a market assessment, that can include classification, regulatory pathway, timeline, cost considerations, key requirements and potential gaps. The output is designed to give commercial and product leaders an earlier, more defensible view of the opportunity while giving regulatory professionals the detail they need to review the basis for the assessment.

Trust comes from being able to inspect that basis. Market Access works from a curated regulatory corpus spanning more than 200 markets rather than relying on the open web. Answers are linked to the specific regulation, guidance, or law behind them, so a regulatory professional can verify the source instead of being asked to accept an AI-generated conclusion on faith.

Three things make regulatory intelligence more defensible

1. Source traceability

A regulatory answer is more useful when the person reviewing it can follow the evidence. Market Access links outputs back to their underlying regulatory sources. That changes the review process from “Do I trust the AI?” to a more practical question: “Does the cited source support this conclusion for our product and situation?”

That is an important shift for regulatory teams. Instead of assembling every market assessment from a blank page, they can review a structured, sourced plan, challenge assumptions, and focus their expertise on the places where judgment matters most.

2. Regulatory specificity

Trust also depends on context. Market Access is purpose-built for medtech regulatory complexity and supports cross-designation classification. The objective is to evaluate the product in the context of the market and the applicable regulatory framework, then carry that context into the pathway, requirements, timeline, cost considerations, and gaps that shape the market-entry decision.

This is where a purpose-built market-planning platform differs from a generic chat experience. The value is not an impressive answer in isolation. It is a connected assessment that helps the team understand what entering the market is likely to require and whether the opportunity still makes sense once those requirements are visible.

3. Human judgment stays in control

No system can remove every area of uncertainty from regulatory work. Reviewer interpretation and expert judgment still affect outcomes, and Market Access is not designed to promise approval.

Instead, Market Access is designed to make uncertainty more manageable. Regulatory professionals review and validate the work before it moves into execution. They can verify sources, assess the gaps, and apply company and product context that software cannot fully replace. The technology accelerates the research and planning. The regulatory professional remains responsible for the judgment.

What trust looks like in a market-entry decision

Imagine a team evaluating several markets for a new product. The commercial question is not simply whether registration is technically possible. The team needs to know which markets deserve investment now, which may require more evidence or resources, and which could put the revenue window at risk because the pathway is longer or more complex than expected.

Regulatory has a different, but connected, need. They have to understand the classification and pathway, identify the requirements most likely to slow the submission, and confirm that the plan reflects the relevant regulatory sources.

Market Access brings those views together. Commercial and product leaders get earlier visibility into timing, cost considerations, requirements, and risk so they can build a stronger business case. Regulatory teams get a source-linked plan they can review rather than a collection of unsupported conclusions. Both groups are working from the same market-entry picture before significant resources are committed.

Trust is not the end goal. Better decisions are.

It is easy for a conversation about regulatory AI to become a conversation about models, agents, or architecture. Those details matter, but they are not the business outcome.

The real value of trustworthy regulatory intelligence is what it lets a team do next. It can help a commercial leader defend a market investment. It can help regulatory surface issues earlier. It can give both groups a more predictable view of the work ahead before budget, R&D capacity, or launch timing is locked in.

And once the decision is made, the work does not have to stop at an intelligence report. Market Access is the market-planning layer. Rimsys RIM is the execution layer for registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, and ongoing regulatory work. Each can stand on its own, and together they create a path from the market-entry decision into controlled execution.

A more useful standard for regulatory AI

The question for medtech teams should not be whether AI can produce a regulatory answer. It can. The better question is whether that answer is specific enough, traceable enough, and reviewable enough to support a real decision.

Market Access is built around that standard: a defensible view of whether, when, and how to enter a market, grounded in curated regulatory sources and kept under human review. Because when the decision affects revenue, resources, and regulatory strategy, sounding right is not enough. Teams need to see why the answer is right, where uncertainty remains, and what it means for the decision in front of them.

Company

Product Updates

Rimsys Announces AI-Native Market Access for Regulated Products

By

Bethaney Lentz

September 1, 2026

4 min read

New software gives regulatory and commercial leaders a source-linked, actionable view of market viability, requirements, timing, and risk before committing resources

PITTSBURGH, PA, September 1, 2026 - Rimsys, the heart of medtech regulatory operations, today announced Market Access, a new AI-native product designed to help companies determine whether a market is worth entering and what it will take to get there. Market Access will be available in beta beginning September 1, 2026, with general availability to be announced separately.

Market Access replaces what can be a 6-to-9-month research and assessment process with a same-day, actionable read on market viability. It gives regulatory and commercial leaders the classification, pathway, timeline, cost considerations, and potential regulatory gaps they need to make a more defensible investment decision before committing budget and resources.

Predictability is at the core of Market Access. Rather than simply identifying a regulatory pathway, it helps teams understand what to expect, which requirements or gaps are most likely to slow down a submission, and where uncertainty remains. Every answer traces back to the specific regulation, guidance, or law behind it, allowing regulatory professionals to verify the underlying source rather than simply trust an AI-generated response.

Key features and benefits include:

  • Same-day market assessment: Provides an actionable read on whether a market is worth entering, replacing research and assessment that can take 6 to 9 months.
  • Cross-designation classification: Evaluates products across medical device, IVD, cosmetic, consumer, and OTC designations, so the same product receives the appropriate regulatory read regardless of how a given market classifies it.
  • Clear market-entry requirements: Provides classification, regulatory pathway, timeline, cost considerations, and key requirements before teams commit resources.
  • Earlier visibility into regulatory gaps: Surfaces the specific requirements and gaps most likely to slow down a submission and helps teams understand their potential severity.
  • Greater predictability: Provides visibility into anticipated regulatory response windows, risks, and areas of uncertainty so teams can better plan for what lies ahead.
  • Source-linked intelligence: Traces answers to the underlying regulations, guidance, and laws so regulatory professionals can verify the basis for an assessment.
  • AI with human oversight: Uses Rimsys AI and Market Manager Agents to accelerate complex regulatory research while keeping regulatory professionals in control of review and validation.
  • Connected planning and execution: Complements RIM, connecting market-entry decisions with the registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, and ongoing compliance required to execute them.

“Regulatory knowledge has traditionally been highly dependent on individual expertise and market-by-market research,” said James Gianoutsos, Founder and CEO of Rimsys. “Market Access gives companies greater predictability before they make a market investment. Teams can understand whether an opportunity is worth pursuing, what it will take to enter, where regulatory challenges are likely to emerge, and what uncertainty remains. And because every answer is tied to its regulatory source, experts can verify the recommendation rather than simply trust the AI.”

Market Access is powered by Rimsys AI, which works from a curated regulatory corpus spanning more than 200 markets, not the open web. Its Market Manager Agents are AI agents with market-specific regulatory knowledge, including pathways, requirements, and documentation, that support market assessments and global launch planning. The product is also designed to acknowledge areas where reviewer interpretation and expert judgment can affect regulatory outcomes rather than presenting those outcomes as more predictable than they are.

Market Access expands the Rimsys product portfolio from regulatory execution into market planning. Market Access helps regulatory and commercial leaders determine where to compete, while RIM manages the registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, product data, and ongoing compliance required to enter and remain in those markets. Together, they turn regulatory intelligence into coordinated action, helping regulatory teams accomplish more in every hour while giving business leaders greater visibility into opportunities, risk, and the work required to protect and grow revenue.

Beta Availability

Market Access will be available in beta beginning September 1, 2026. During the beta period, Rimsys will continue validating product capabilities and refining workflows ahead of broader commercial availability. 

Organizations interested in learning more about Market Access or participating in the beta program can visit rimsys.io/products/market-access.

About Rimsys

Rimsys is the heart of regulatory operations, connecting AI-native market planning with AI-embedded regulatory execution, giving medtech manufacturers one living system from market-entry decision to execution. 

Rimsys Market Access is the planning layer, answering not just whether a market can be entered, but whether it should be, returning classification, pathway, timeline, and cost before a team commits budget or resources to finding out. Rimsys RIM is the execution layer, managing registrations, submissions, regulatory changes, and compliance so teams can act on that plan with confidence.

Trusted by 6 of the top 12 global MedTech manufacturers and certified to ISO 27001 and SOC 2, with ISO 42001 certification for AI management systems underway, Rimsys keeps regulatory intelligence, product data, approvals, and change management continuously connected so teams can enter new markets with speed and assurance. Learn more at rimsys.io.

Media Contact
letschat@rimsys.io

I agree to the privacy policy including to Rimsys using my contact details to contact me for marketing purposes.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Hand holding smartphone showing email app with 12 unread messages notification.