This is a ready-to-use risk assessment for selecting which characteristics to verify when you set up a compendial method under USP General Chapter <1226>. It produces the documented rationale that is the heart of a verification study: which characteristics are at risk under your conditions, and why the others are not. Replace every <<FILL: ...>> placeholder with your own specifics. A worked filled specimen follows the template. This is general guidance to adapt, not regulatory advice; confirm the current USP-NF edition before relying on it.
Document control header
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Title | Verification Characteristic Selection: <<FILL: attribute / method>> |
| Document number | <<FILL>> |
| Linked protocol | <<FILL: protocol ID>> |
| Article | <<FILL>> |
| Compendial reference and edition | <<FILL>> |
| Author | <<FILL>> |
| Date | <<FILL>> |
Why this record exists
USP <1226> says verification is risk-based and deliberately narrower than validation: you select the characteristics at risk given your specific sample and conditions, rather than repeating the full validation. The absence of a documented rationale for excluded characteristics is itself a common finding. This record is where you reason it out and write it down before the data.
1. Procedure type
Tick the category, which frames the candidate characteristics.
| Procedure type | Applies? |
|---|---|
| Identification | <<FILL>> |
| Quantitative assay (major component) | <<FILL>> |
| Quantitative test for impurities | <<FILL>> |
| Limit test for impurities | <<FILL>> |
2. Conditions comparison (your conditions vs the method’s assumptions)
| Factor | Method assumes | Your condition | Difference creates risk to |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matrix / excipients | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: specificity, accuracy>> |
| Impurity / degradant profile | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: specificity, LOQ>> |
| Instrument platform / detector | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: sensitivity, precision>> |
| Sample preparation | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: accuracy/recovery>> |
| Number of analysts / instruments / days | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: intermediate precision>> |
| Concentration vs published working range | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: range>> |
3. Characteristic selection decision
| Characteristic | At risk? | Verify? | Rationale (the load-bearing text) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specificity / selectivity | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: usually Yes>> | <<FILL: your matrix is the variable; possible coelution>> |
| Accuracy (recovery) | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: possible incomplete recovery or matrix bias>> |
| Repeatability | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> |
| Intermediate precision | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: yes if more than one analyst/day/instrument>> |
| Detection limit | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: low-level impurity work only>> |
| Quantitation limit | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: published LOQ established on a different sample>> |
| Linearity | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: often excluded; may be covered by SST>> |
| Range | <<FILL>> | <<FILL>> | <<FILL: excluded if published range brackets your spec>> |
4. Conclusion
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Characteristics to verify | <<FILL: the selected set>> |
| Characteristics excluded (with rationale) | <<FILL: the excluded set and the one-line reason each>> |
| Special cases checked | <<FILL: sterility <71> and endotoxin <85> handled by their own suitability tests, not <1226>; basic compendial tests may need minimal verification unless matrix could affect the result>> |
5. References
USP General Chapter <1226> (risk-based verification); <1225> (validation) and <621> (allowable chromatographic adjustments); ICH Q2(R2) for the characteristic definitions. Confirm the current USP-NF edition before issue.
6. Approvals
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author (QC SME) | <<FILL>> | ||
| Reviewer (method validation group) | <<FILL>> | ||
| Approver (QA) | <<FILL>> |
Filled specimen
Characteristic selection for the example finished-product assay by HPLC with two novel excipients and two routine analysts (illustrative).
| Characteristic | At risk? | Verify? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specificity | Yes | Yes | Two excipients not in the monograph’s typical matrix; possible coelution with the API |
| Accuracy (recovery) | Yes | Yes | Same novel matrix; possible incomplete recovery or bias |
| Repeatability | Yes | Yes | Confirm method precision in our hands |
| Intermediate precision | Yes | Yes | Two analysts will run the method routinely |
| Linearity / range | No | No | Published working range fully brackets the 90.0 to 110.0% spec; detector linearity well documented |
| LOQ / LOD | No | No | Major-component assay; low-level sensitivity not relevant |
Conclusion (specimen). Verify specificity, accuracy, repeatability, and intermediate precision. Exclude linearity, range, and LOQ/LOD with the rationale above. The method is an assay, so sterility and endotoxin special cases do not apply. This selection is the documented basis for the verification protocol.
Common findings this record prevents
- Two characteristics tested and the rest skipped with no written justification (<1226> is explicitly risk-based).
- Specificity ignored for a complex matrix, missing a coelution that inflates assay or hides an impurity.
- Treating system suitability as if it replaced specificity, accuracy, or precision.
- Verifying sterility or endotoxin under <1226> instead of their own suitability tests.
How to adapt this record
- Complete it before writing the protocol and before generating data.
- Make the conditions comparison real: name the actual excipients, platform, and analysts.
- Write a one-line rationale for every excluded characteristic; that is what reviewers read first.
- Carry the selected set into the verification protocol.
- Confirm the current USP-NF edition before issue.