It's worth making the switch now
The FDA CSA Guidance is final (2025, updated in 2026), and as of February 2026, the QMSR refers to ISO 13485. The uniform, risk-based validation approach is now in place.
We validate computer-based systems as well as process, QM, and tool software using a risk-based approach: The effort is limited to what is truly necessary for the validation documentation—in accordance with ISO 13485, GAMP 5, and FDA computer software assurance (CSA). Lean, audit-ready, and maintained in a validated state.
Metecon takes a risk-based approach to the validation of computer-based systems: Instead of generating mountains of documentation, we determine the necessary scope of the validation for each system and the tools to be used, based on risk and usage and in accordance with computer software assurance (CSA), GAMP 5 (2nd Ed.), and ISO 13485. This ensures that process, QM, and tool software remain in a validated state—ready for audits by Notified Bodies and the FDA—and that effort is expended only where it is truly necessary for creating validation records.
Intended for: QM Management / QMR, validation and CSV managers, and the Head of Regulatory Affairs—as well as Quality IT, production/process managers, and executives at smaller manufacturers.
"Software validation rarely fails due to a lack of commitment, but rather due to a lack of focus: We validate in a risk-based manner—effort is directed to where it is truly necessary for validation documentation. This ensures that process, QM, and tool software validation remain streamlined, audit-ready, and manageable."
– Thorsten Stumpf · Principal Expert Software & AI · RAC Devices · Metecon GmbH
CSV with the wrong priorities ties up resources and delays releases without any discernible improvement in quality.
Which systems and tools need to be validated, and to which extent? This results in audit nonconformities with ISO 13485 clauses 4.1.6, 7.5.6, and 7.6.
Frequent updates and SaaS releases make it nearly impossible to maintain a validated state.
The FDA CSA Guidance is final (2025, updated in 2026), and as of February 2026, the QMSR refers to ISO 13485. The uniform, risk-based validation approach is now in place.
scope, risk-based approach, and regulatory framework—clearly organized
Software that affects product quality, safety, or the effectiveness of the QMS must be validated; the medical device software itself does not need to be validated.
software used in quality management processes and in production (ISO 13485, clause 7.5.6).
software that is used in the quality management system (ISO 13485, clause 4.1.6).
software that is used for monitoring or measuring (ISO 13485, clause 7.6).
Software validation requires critical thinking and consideration of software risks in order to produce lean documentation:
Testing what matters—rather than testing every feature of the software in question, even those that are irrelevant.
Determine the scope of validation based on the intended purpose and risk, not on the software's full range of functions.
High testing effort for high risk; low testing effort for lower risk.
Use supplier documentation. Suppliers who provide documentation tailored to your needs reduce the testing burden.
Validation is required multiple times in ISO 13485; ISO/TR 80002-2 and GAMP 5 specify concrete procedural models. With the QMSR, the EU and the FDA are moving closer together in terms of regulation.
Clauses 4.1.6, 7.5.6, and 7.6 require validation; ISO/TR 80002-2 and AAMI TIR36 provide best practices.
Since February 2026, 21 CFR Part 820 (QMSR) has referenced ISO 13485:2016—consistent with Part 11.
ISO/TR 80002-2 is a best practice standard (not harmonized); audits are conducted against ISO 13485, clauses 4.1.6, 7.5.6, 7.6.
Software used in processes, in quality management, or as a tool (e.g., in product development or product V&V) must be documented.
The risk associated with each identified software for the use case must be determined—this determines the scope of validation for the corresponding software.
Review and use of supporting documentation provided by the manufacturer.
Scope, test methodology (scripted vs. unscripted), risk-based testing, and transparent documentation of results.
Document validation reports and approvals in an audit-proof manner (ISO 13485, QMSR). Approvals with restrictions are also possible.
Evaluate updates and patches and maintain the system in a validated state. If necessary, perform the checks specified in the validation plan.
We focus the depth and documentation - using a risk-based approch - on the key system characteristics and we use supplier documentation—this makes validation streamlined, fast, and still audit-ready.
Scope of validation per system according to ISO/TR 80002-2, AAMI TIR 36, and GAMP 5 categories. Lean but robust.
Validation plans and reports that successfully pass NB and FDA audits (ISO 13485, 21 CFR Part 11).
Make strategic use of supplier documentation—less duplication of dffort, less work.
Validate test tools, measuring equipment, and processes (ISO 13485, 7.5.6, 7.6) – with clear justification.
Considering ISO 13485, 4.1.6, 7.5.6, 7.6, and QMSR+Part 11 together—an approach for both markets.
We translate complex regulations into actionable strategies. Our benchmarks are modeled after the strengths of leading providers: lean, risk-based validation, audit-ready documentation, and software/process validation.
Metecon meets these criteria and integrates them with product documentation and quality management.
Software validation overlaps with quality management and the software life cycle. We cover these related topics on separate pages and link them together to form a coherent evidence structure.
Review of existing validations and corresponding SOPs for gaps and suitability. Include a pragmatic roadmap for implementation.
Establishing a streamlined, risk-based software validation process or optimizing an existing one.
Identifying systems, determining their intended purpose and risks, and defining the scope of validation.
Clearly specifying the requirements (user/functional requirements) for each system—the foundation for targeted, risk-based testing.
Validating test tools and measuring equipment software—with audit-ready justification.
Risk assessment of the change, approval of the change, and assistance in determining and carrying out the necessary validation.
In-house training courses on CSV, CSA, GAMP 5, ISO/TR 80002-2, AAMI TIR36, and Part 11 for QM, RA, and IT.
The same risk-based validation strategy also applies to IVD manufacturers under the IVDR.
Software validation applies to software that is not part of the medical device. We cover the validation of the medical device software itself on the V&V page.
validation of non-product software: process, quality management, tooling, and measurement equipment software
Basis:
ISO 13485 clauses 4.1.6/7.5.6/7.6, ISO/TR 80002-2, GAMP 5, FDA CSA, Part 11.
verification and validation of the medical device software itself (IEC 82304-1) and of the product’s technical compliance.
Tools used in product development (e.g., testing tools) fall under software validation; testing of the medical device itself is part of V&V. We ensure consistency between these two areas of evidence.
Software validation is a QM discipline defined in ISO 13485 and is an integral part of the QMS.
risk-based scope of validation, integrated with product risk management (ISO 14971)

Thorsten Stumpf and the Metecon team implement a risk-based approach to software validation. This covers everything from system inventory and risk assessment to validation plans and testing, through to software release and maintaining the validated state, for both EU and international markets.
Software must be validated in QM-relevant processes, in production, or when used as a monitoring tool, measuring instrument, or testing tool that affects product quality, data integrity, or the effectiveness of the QMS (ISO 13485, 4.1.6 / 7.5.6 / 7.6). Medical device software itself is validated together with the medical device or as a standalone medical device—see the V&V section and the MDSW section for more details.
Regarding the intended purpose and risk of the system in its context of use (usually a process context): High risk typically requires more extensive validation, while low risk requires less. Certain regulatory documents (including CSA and GAMP 5) provide the framework—efforts are focused where the software could negatively impact the medical device itself or the associated regulatory activities.
The FDA computer software assurance (final 2025, updated 2026) outlines a risk-based approach incorporating critical thinking, which, in the FDA’s view, requires the least amount of effort. This allows validation to be tailored to the FDA’s requirements. CSV is also a risk-based approach used in the context of the requirements of ISO 13485.
Through a defined process for releasing software after changes: Software updates are assessed on a risk-based basis prior to release; only the functions affected by the change are retested, and supporting documentation is updated accordingly. This ensures that the system remains in a validated state without having to completely revalidate every release.
By incorporating the software vendor’s development and test documentation into one’s own validation process (supplier leverage). For qualified suppliers, this significantly reduces the company’s own testing effort—CSA and GAMP 5 (2nd Ed.) explicitly provide for this.
Since February 2026, 21 CFR Part 820 (QMSR) has included ISO 13485:2016 by reference. This brings EU and FDA requirements for software validation closer together—a consistent, risk-based approach covers both areas.
Software validation (CSV/CSA) applies to software that is not the product itself but has an impact in the regulatory context—software used in relevant processes, in essential quality management tasks, or as tools employed in product development, (V&V) or production. The verification and validation of the medical device software itself (IEC 62304, IEC 82304-1) is a separate discipline and is addressed separately.
The effort involved depends on the risk associated with the systems in the intended application area, as well as on existing evidence supporting their safe and effective use (EU/FDA). During a free initial consultation, we will assess your case, prioritize it based on risk, and then provide a robust framework.
Start with a free initial consultation. We’ll then prioritize based on risk, review supplier documentation, and outline your audit-ready validation approach. We turn complexity into clarity.
Your contact:
Milan Weiß
Sales Manager
T: +49 621 123469-040
milan.weiss@metecon.de
